ガリーヴ氏による「マリウポリから見るロシアとウクライナの近代的発展」

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Siege of Mariupol Putin announced his decision to stop further assaults on Azovstal: the last remaining Ukrainian stronghold in Mariupol. Siege of Mariupol started on Feb 25, by March 3 the city was completely surrounded. Two months later its defenders still stand their ground🧵 pic.twitter.com/IySsp4GpFc

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Mariupol is a city on the Azove Sea shore. It is located about 50 km from the Russian border (grey). Since the start of the war 2014, it has been a frontline city. No wonder that with the full-scale Z-invasion it was surrounded almost immediately and now is in deep Russian rear pic.twitter.com/dPrC9NUHZx

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Mariupol was founded by the Crimean Christians deported by Russia in 1770s. Deportation of Christians from Crimea received surprisingly little international coverage. So let's discuss it. Until XVIII century Muslim Tatar Crimean Khanate was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire pic.twitter.com/UXQdfsqdmN

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Crimean Khanate is a misunderstood polity often viewed almost as an Ottoman province. And yet, although they used Ottoman language & terminology in their administration, in practice their legal, political, institutional norms were different: more Golden Horde-ish than Ottomanish pic.twitter.com/ttRTAU7DhE

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Theoretically both the Ottomans and the Crimea were monarchies. In practice however Crimea was a military democracy with tons of constitutional checks on the monarchic power. Meanwhile, institutional structure of the Ottoman Empire was designed in order to maximise the said power pic.twitter.com/ivpCPAxgK2

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

That doesn't mean that Crimea was more "progressive" than the Ottomans. It was probably the other way around. Crimea was a Turkic steppe state which didn't became a great empire and where traditions of tribal democracy were not systematically dismantled by the emerging monarchy pic.twitter.com/XgQ2Dks3KM

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Paradoxically it may sound, constitutional character of Crimea means it was more archaic. That may sound strange for modern Anglos but their forefathers would find it logical. Which is obvious if you scroll through debates of the English Civil War era on the Ancient Constitution pic.twitter.com/RNvh7DI80B

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Being so archaic, Crimean Khanate was very diverse. Ruling class was Tatar (=Kipchak Turkic). But there also lived Greeks, Armenians, Jews, etc. According to Jacob Ziegler, it was the last place where the Gothic language, dead elsewhere, was still spoken in the late Middle Ages pic.twitter.com/SsCraccKpq

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Ethnic situation in Crimea could be illustrated by an Armeno-Kipchak language. Crimean Armenians forgot their tongue and switched to the Kipchak. However, they continued to write it with Armenian letters. First printed Turkic books ever were written in a now dead Armeno-Kipchak pic.twitter.com/IWzU0PpUtU

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

After centuries of Russian-Crimean wars, Crimea (and their Ottoman suzerains) were defeated. In 1774 Catherine II imposed a peace treaty which proclaimed Crimean Khanate to be a sovereign state, free from any foreign (=Ottoman) authority. It was occupied by the Russian army pic.twitter.com/Reprtkl0Cq

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Peace treaty of 1774 determined that all Christian captives and slaves living in Crimea had to be liberated and returned to Russia. And yet it didn't specify: whom exactly do we consider a captive or slave? Russian authorities argued that all Christians in Crimea were captives pic.twitter.com/UTqyWpBjm8

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Russian Empire traditionally weaponised abolitionist narrative to justify its expansion. Сourt poet Kheraskov wrote a poem on a war against Crimea: "We have to go there Because of the hardship of our kin, Having the same law [=religion] as us, They are in heavy chains there" pic.twitter.com/8h6vs5uTzV

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

The war against Crimea was waged in order to liberate Crimean Christians from their captivity. It was more of a humanitarian operation than a war of aggression. In 1774 Crimean Christians received a chance to leave their chains and go home. But almost nobody used this opportunity pic.twitter.com/zmwSg2oMKQ

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

For four years Russian Empire waited for the mass exodus of Christians from Crimea. In 1778 the patience was over and Alexander Suvorov was charged with evacuating Christians to Russia A flood of complaints on Suvorov who used violence to make Christians leave, followed soon pic.twitter.com/qu9BAFbIgd

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Reading all these complaints, Rumyantsev prohibited Suvorov to use violence "so that no Cossack would not chase anyone with a whip" "This order was issued after the Christian deportation was over. Otherwise, I would be destroyed for failing the operation" recalled Suvorov pic.twitter.com/FigLjXi9Gs

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Indeed, by May 1768 the Christian deportation was over. How did they react? Some tried to hide in the mountains. Others converted to Islam to avoid being liberated. Paradoxically, Russian conquest of Crimea led to the mass Islamization and Turkification (much like on Volga) pic.twitter.com/We4Y4DBmQx

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Until Rumyantsev prohibited Suvorov to use violence more than 30 000 of Greeks, Armenians, Georgians and others had been deported. By the end of 1779 they settled on the Azov Sea shore and founded 19 new villages named after their Crimean homes: Yalta, Mangush, Old Crimea, etc pic.twitter.com/23gYsQPSOU

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

The main settlement of this new deportees colony was the city of Marienpol, whose initial coat of arms consisted of a cross and a crescent thus manifesting a triumph of Christianity over Islam. In 1780 Marienpol was renamed to Mariupol after a wife of the heir to the throne pic.twitter.com/3oHgcGUrxP

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Area around the modern Mariupol was very sparsely populated back then. Why? Well, because it is the Eurasian Steppe. It stands exactly on the ancient nomadic migration route leading from the Inner Asia to Europe. Those who tried to settle would be wiped out by new incoming waves pic.twitter.com/HDvkljip6T

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

The factor of the Eurasian steppe corridor shaped Ukrainian history. That's how Ukrainian electoral maps used to look like till 2014. This dichotomy is often described as West vs East or Ukrainian vs Russian speakers. I would suggest another concept: Old Country vs New Country pic.twitter.com/kJvt8HSNta

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Old Ukraine (North and West) is an area of very old agrarian settlement. New Ukraine (South and East) is a part of the Eurasian Steppe Corridor which was settled en masse only in the 18-19th cc. Previous settlements e.g. under Golden Horde were destroyed by other steppe forces pic.twitter.com/qW1vU2HLuU

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Old Ukraine is a country of deep-rooted agrarian and urban civilisation. New Ukraine is basically the North America. It's a very new settler society which was formed by the mass colonisation of steppes in 18-19th cc. Unlike the West it has little (continuous) history or tradition pic.twitter.com/AjQFOFlFAo

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

That gives an answer to the question I've been asked so often. Aren't East Ukrainians basically Russian? Historically New Ukraine was settled by everyone, much like North America. Settlers from Central Ukraine, like Poltava or Chernihiv made the largest demographic group there pic.twitter.com/IGsSXc13X4

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Why would settlers from the Old Ukraine leave to the New one? Largely due to the demographic pressure. By 19th c Old Ukraine suffered from huge agrarian overpopulation. So Central Ukrainians settled not only the New Ukraine, but much of southern Russia all the way to the Pacific pic.twitter.com/zcqANjaLjr

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Consider this ethnic map of USSR, 1941. Area of Ukrainian demographic majority (orange) goes far beyond the current Ukrainian border. It covers Krasnodar (encircled), and many settlements along the Trans-Siberian railway all the way to Vladivostok pic.twitter.com/h3kpLa6dYB

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

As a result of 18-20th cc Ukrainian Expansion, Russia now has quite a lot of descendants of Ukrainians. They are especially overrepresented in southern Black Sea regions (such as Krasnodar) and in the Far East. That might explain the prejudice of other Russians against Krasnodar pic.twitter.com/AwQtjf8nXT

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Of all the Russian regions, public image of Krasnodar, whose people are mocked as Kubanoids (Kuban being the main river there) is especially unsympathetic. Judging from Russian social media, mass attitude towards Krasnodar might have an element of ethnic prejudice pic.twitter.com/DTA9AFGISA

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Ukrainian heritage in South (around Krasnodar) and in the Far East (Primorskii, Khabarovskii Krais) may be an important factor when predicting the future of Russia. Russia has three main doors to the World Ocean (red) and two of these regions are heavily Ukrainian by origin pic.twitter.com/7nhervN3AE

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Now let's return to the New Ukraine. Ukrainian East such as Donbass was settled by a wide variety of people much like North America. Initial settlers of Mariupol for example were Crimean Christians deported from Crimea by the Russian Empire. Soon they were outnumbered by Slavs pic.twitter.com/5IGEJ2I7j6

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Let me illustrate the diverse origins of Donbass by the following example. Two main urban centres of the region - Donetsk and Luhansk - were both founded by the British industrialists: Charles Gascoigne and John Hughes pic.twitter.com/dd6qwIWOOz

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Luhansk was built by Charles Gascoigne, who revolutionised the naval warfare by introducing the carronades. He also revolutionised the Russian metallurgy. Previously it worked only on charcoal. Gascoigne looked for coal deposits and found them near modern Luhansk pic.twitter.com/FYK3HXfxK0

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Donetsk was built by a Welsh industrialist John Hughes who moved to Donbass with his own equipment, technologies and workers - mostly his compatriots from the South Wales. A settlement they established was named after him Yuzovka and after revolution was renamed to Donetsk pic.twitter.com/pkc4hh9xPc

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Gascoigne-Hughes story illustrates the history of Donbass. It isn't an old country. It's a part of the Eurasian Corridor colonised much like North America in the same era by a wide variety of people. Its real demographic & economic boom started only with the Industrial Revolution pic.twitter.com/gSxEI2RMQZ

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Once the industrialisation commenced, Donbass region had nearly American rates of growth. In 1850 Mariupol was just a small market town. By 1900 it was an industrial powerhouse and a major seaport, controlling much of Donbass exports pic.twitter.com/oSrpD4yQTU

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Revolution and the Civil War was a major blow on Mariupol. Most of industry belonged to the Westerners. Communists nationalised it ofc, but the technological chains were disrupted and production dropped dramatically. Only in the late 1920s USSR started industrialising again pic.twitter.com/hCZ3ZVjEl4

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

It might seem that Stalin's industrialisation had nothing in common with previous one. In the past it was driven by the private initiative, now by the state. In the past enterprises had to be profitable, Stalin argued that a socialist enterprise absolutely can operate at loss pic.twitter.com/4W7aqf3hGh

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

In one important respect however, Stalin's industrialisation was a copy of the Imperial one. Both Russian Imperial and Soviet propaganda wouldn't shut up about a struggle against the corrupt West, while in fact their economy fully relied on Western assistance and supervision pic.twitter.com/pdyMqbaXxb

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Imperial and Stalin's regime were similar in their full technological and organisational reliance on the West. This parallel is especially obvious is we consider the history of Azovstal plant, location of probably the hardest battle of this war. I'll make a pause, to be continued pic.twitter.com/zC7pZEBY2j

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Imperial splendour of the Russian Empire hides its technological dependence. Consider the following. St Petersburg, the capital of the empire was founded in 1703 in the mouth of Neva river. And yet, till mid XIX century it didn't have a single permanent bridge, only pontoon ones pic.twitter.com/TWPhm31JOh

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

St Petersburg was not only a political, but also a logistic centre. When it was founded in 1703, it was the only Russian non-Arctic seaport giving access to the World Ocean. Delta of Neva divided it into a number of poorly connected areas without a single permanent bridge pic.twitter.com/5CAEKyjBbF

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

The first permanent bridge through Neva - Annunciation Bridge (Благовещенский bridge) was built in 1843-1850 by a West Point grad George Washington Whistler. This American engineer moved to Russia and helped massively in Russian bridge & railways construction pic.twitter.com/jC1gpeUSsf

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Whistler's help was vital because he belonged to a superior technological and industrial culture. He didn't need to invent a wheel. He just brought to Russia the American way of doing things. Consider the construction of the first major railroad in Russia: Moscow - St Petersburg pic.twitter.com/PTRw6wsIYV

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Such project involved many technical problems, such as building 190 bridges of various size. Fortunately, Whistler brought a design of Howe truss. This American solution was used in every single bridge on Moscow-Petersburg road and more than 50 years later on Trans-Siberian one pic.twitter.com/RKcobIzmJs

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Russian Empire can look very and menacing. And yet, it's not self-sufficient. It's a semi-periphery empire which can't produce technological or organisational solutions. It can only import them from the core. That was the case for the Tsars, for Stalin, and ofc is the case now pic.twitter.com/F9XsHOYOhw

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani

Let me reiterate my point. Periphery and semi-periphery absolutely can develop. But they develop by importing *ready* solutions from the core. They don't import elements of a system, they import entire systems from the core with the core assistance and the core supervision pic.twitter.com/p5tCxOCQzs