What do you think of de Gaulle's analysis of Russia?

[Julie4]

This was written in 1919


"Bolshevism will not last forever in Russia. A day will come when order will be restored there, and when Russia, having rebuilt its strength, will look around her. On that day, she will see herself as the peace will leave her, that is to say, deprived of Estonia, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, and perhaps Ukraine. Will she be content with that? We do not believe so. The same causes producing the same effects, we will see Russia resume its march towards the West and the South-West. On which side will Russia seek help to resume the work of Peter the Great, Catherine II? Let us not say it too loudly, but let us know it and think about it: it is to Germany that it will inevitably turn its hopes. That is why, gentlemen, France is lending Poland and Romania such a large military aid. "

[nightdrot]

It is nothing less than you would expect from DeGualle. He was a military man. A student of history and a statesman.

He understood that nations are driven by their interests - both immediate and historical. What makes this statement so interesting - and I am not sure when it was made - is that DeGualle understood, implicitly at least, that communism did not alter Russia's fundamental interests and ambitions.

DeGualle understood that whatever the ideological trappings. a state would pursue its historic strategic and economic interests.

As far as Germany, DeGualle here again has a point. It is why Ukraine has become such a divisive issue. The USA and the UK - and France - cannot afford to leave Europe in such a state where Germany would be inclined to make a deal with Russia.

Recall that it was said of NATO that its' purpose was to "Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down." Break that formula and Germany and Russia are apt to cut a deal that will allow them - not necessarily militarily but diplomatically and economically - to dominate Europe.

To be sure, such a course would likely lead, in the fullness of time, to a Russian-German conflict. While they have common interests, that is not the same thing as saying that they are natural allies - as the two world wars amply demonstrate.

Suffice to say, it is an interesting quote. It reaffirms the old adage, "If you predict catastrophe long enough, you will invariably be thought a prophet."

[Julie4]

He also had this to say

" The only international realities are nations. Russia will absorb communism like a blotter absorbs ink. "

I hope you and your family are well.

[nightdrot]

Thank you - and to you and yours' as well.

As far as that last quote, I am not quite sure what it means. A blotter absorbs ink and takes on the color of the ink.

In the case of Russia and communism, the methods employed by the communist party were already part of Russia's history going back to the Tsars. As to he ideology, it proved a failure and is gone.

No one in Russia speaks seriously of communism and its' theoretical underpinnings. The methods are still employed, but the goal - a stateless Utopia and all the rest - is hardly given second thought.

In addition, Russia is no longer pushing world revolution. (It is not, for example, pushing insurgencies in Africa and Asia as a step toward world revolution.) It is, rather, pursuing Russia's definable historic interests.

The first part of the quote is bang on. Nations are international realities. Communism preached a stateless Utopia. Suffice to say, that did not happen and Mr. Putin is testament to the enduring reality of the state - and then some.

[Oliverlogan263]

Wow that de Gaulle guy seems pretty smart. This was back in 1919 too after all the crazy stuff in Russia, so he must have really been paying attention to figure things out.

It makes total sense what he's saying about how Bolshevism probably won't last forever and once Russia gets its act back together they'll want their old lands back. Losing all those places like Finland and Ukraine, they ain't gonna be happy about that long term.

It's smart that he predicts Russia will turn back west and southwest later on too to try expanding like the old tsars used to. And thinking Germany would be the one they look to help is interesting since those countries ended up allies later in history.

I can see why France would want to help out Poland and Romania too if they were worried about Russia coming after them next. Pretty bold prediction for 1919 to call things like that. This de Gaulle cat must have been a real strategy wizard to put all these pieces together so early. Politics and history can get confusing but he seemed to follow it pretty well. Pretty wild stuff!

[Julie4]

You understand perfectly. De Gaulle is a hero in France. But when he wrote these lines, he wasn't famous.

[Oliverlogan263]

Ouais, De Gaulle is totally a hero in France! It's crazy to think when he wrote those words about Russia, he wasn't famous yet. Dude must have had such a smart brain, you know?

Like how he could see what Russia would be like after the Bolsheviks even that early. And how they'd always want their old lands back. He saw all that coming way before anyone else!

It's aussi insane he knew Germany would be the one Russia eventually turned to if they got strong again. What a crazy good prediction, non? I bet a lot of people at the time thought he was fou for saying that.

Mais De Gaulle, he stayed true to his vision. And now everyone can see he was right avec le recul. That's why the French love him so much - he really understood geopolitics better than anyone.

Even when no one else believed, he stuck to his analysis de la situation. That takes some big cojones! Pas étonnant qu'il's became a hero après la guerre. L'homme était un vrai génie.

[Darklydarkened]

Russia, is still the successor of Mongol Yoke, and their entire state is built around the idea of expanding into steppes and Europe someday

Even Bolshevism and communism didn't change that imperialistic agenda. It actually increased it because communism brought Russia from middle age to modern industrial state in just a couple of decades.

Such socio-political concepts are very slow burns so any intellectual person of the day could theorise such stuff.

It's just, the Western world has slipped form such people's control into ignorant populists.

There's a reason why Poland is so aggressively supportive towards Ukraine, even though they both have some tension and conflict of interest in the grand scale

Russian state, is still not over the absolutist, authoritarian mentality this very day. And they can't even get along with dozens of Turkic republic they're holding under their authorities these days.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I am from Georgia, we are neighbors of Russia and our country has a long history.

For over 300 hundreds of years Russia has been trying to occupy our lands.

Right now, 20% of Georgia is occupied by Russia.

Russia will never stop until it is made to. It’s in their blood.

If anybody dares being the devil’s advocate they can try spending some time in the Eastern or South-Eastern European neighbors of Russia and see what happens there themselves.

[Soteris]

It is obsolete wisdom. The whole point of Russia expanding was to find defensible geography to prevent foreign armies just walking unopposed into Russia and taking the place over. This is no longer a concern for Russia, ever since the nukes we no longer look towards mountain ranges or major rivers to help secure borders. The deterrence of nukes is more than enough to secure your own peace.

Of course, Russia has been nothing if not traditionalists and regressive, they have not yet gone back to the drawing board and thought over their national situation, too caught up in trying to re-establish old power dynamics that they lost. AKA trying to rebuild the soviet union in one form or another.

But that is also why Russia is facing its downfall today. They have spent their manpower, their economic growth and the future of their own country to try recapture old glory, which no longer exists and no longer within their grasp. They have lost everything now. They will no longer be a threat to Europe for the next 500 years or more. They simply do not have it in them anymore as they fell further and further behind the rest of the world in development. Europe has simply beaten Russia by population and economic growth alone and there is no coming back from that really.

[Julie4]

It's more complex and nuanced than that

Russia's actions have not been solely for reasons of national security.

[Soteris]

No its really not. I mean sure, they do subscribe to things like the heartland theory and whatnot but that is not WHY they have been expanding since literally forever. It was always about security (at least with the Russian leaders that actually understood geopolitics). Russia literally has everything else. Oil? Check. Natural resources? Check. Population? Well.. used to. Territorial space? In fucking spades!

There is nothing that Russia could gain by taking over its nearby countries that it does not already have except for good defensive geography.

[Julie4]

No, Russia has always wanted to meddle in European affairs, to have access to the warm seas and secure its supplies etc. and at the time, the richest part of the Russian economy was the European side, add the need for security and you get the whole picture.

[Soteris]

Do you know why the richest part of Russia is on the European side? Because that is the only real place to have large farm lands in the whole of Russia.
www.researchgate.net/.../...lgorod-2-Bryansk-3.png

In other words, the place with all the food that can support the place with all the people which in turn means the place where all your national power is centralized and that which you must defend.. which makes Europe the biggest threat.. which means Russia needs to continue to "meddle in European affairs" to maintain its own security.

Aside from that, Russia already has access to warm sea ports in the black sea and St Petersburg not to mention the eastern coast. As I said before, it has EVERYTHING already and the only thing it is lacking used to be security.

Security is the only thing that moves Russia and Putin is just too dumb to see it that way because the nukes already solved that problem long ago.

[Julie4]

First of all, all I can say is that Russia has always had the same territorial ambitions, so that doesn't cancel out what de Gaulle said.

No, that wasn't the case at the time I'm talking about. Russia needed access to the warm seas, to secure its supplies, etc. It wasn't just for security reasons.

In the 19th century, Russia was emerging from a period of expansion that had seen it gain a foothold in northern regions such as Karelia and Courland (1721), around the Black Sea (southern Ukraine, 1774), in Crimea (1783), in the Caucasus (Dniester border, 1792) and in Poland (partitions of 1772, 1793 and 1795). On its marches, it constantly clashed with the Persians, the Ottomans and even the English on the way to India. Russian expeditions had also reached as far as the Kuril Islands, Alaska and the west coast of North America.

The powers of Western Europe looked on with concern at this expansionism, which concerned them first and foremost. Ever since Peter the Great, the Russian Empire had been a major player in European politics, and not without reason, since the subjects of the Tsars and Tsarines were largely Slavs or of Vareg origin, professed Christianity and presented themselves as a bulwark against the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Its elites, starting with the imperial family, looked westwards and often entered into matrimonial alliances, while the most active and wealthiest part of the economy was based in European Russia.

Cont

[Julie4]

Like her predecessors, but with even greater strength and resources, Catherine II pursued a three-pronged European policy: complete the Russian expansion northwards and around the Baltic, with the conquest of Finland in her sights; advance westwards, territorially in Poland and through influence in Germany; gain access to the warm seas, principally the Mediterranean, possibly by making Constantinople the "third Rome" and taking up strategic positions. We need only look at the number of Russian-Turkish conflicts up to the end of the 19th century to be convinced of this project.

After other failed attempts on Malta (1800) and the Ionian islands (1807-1815), constant wars for the Straits and, finally, Russian-Turkish appeasement, they obtained the much-desired bases in Syria, at Tartous and Hmeimin. Putin's support for the Syrian dictator also has deep historical roots here, specifically Russian and not stemming from a pseudo-ligue of dictators.

These ambitions were hampered by the backwardness of the economy (90% agricultural based on the enslavement of peasants and closed to technical progress), the weakness of state resources and under-administration, insufficient military resources, political instability and, of course, the clear opposition of the Western powers to the intrusion of the "Barbarians of the North", as the Russians were called, into their affairs.

In this sense, Europe remains an essential arena for Russian diplomacy and ambitions. Since Peter the Great and Catherine II (still them), Russia has had a relatively stable policy towards Western Europe, a policy that neither the 19th-century tsars, nor Stalin, nor Brezhnev, nor Putin have abandoned.

And all nuclear nations still have this need for security, first and foremost the United States, and that's not going to change.

[smne35]

Why, why must there be this need to go to war to invade another country, this e is not what the people want, people want to live in peace raise their kids, live as they please, people care nothing about invading another country, that is what happens when you elevate another human above you, to lead you, yes ask that he wrote decades ago is coming to pass but anyone who pays attention to current events can predict what's coming next my point is we don't elect people to take us to war, or create weapons to destroy our only home, why can't they just respect each other for their way of life not impose ones way over another's, who said it was is right way or theirs is, respect understand learn Frank reach other work together, but sadly no one wants peace, war just pays too much to these weapons maker, peace no money, war, can brag about the new mansion being built around the world that's the reality of governments,

[RavVid]

Pretty accurate except for Germany which is anachronistic now - but wasn't in 1919.

All that it requires for Russia to act in this way is a persuasive acceptance of McKinder Heartland theory (or variant) in the governing elite and Catherine the Great's maxim 'to defend my borders I must increase my borders'.

Empires were trading blocks as well as border lands. Russia has sort of rejected Global Trade and so must try for a trading block. Interviews of Russians in the street shows many consider they are entitled to an empire.

So what de Gaulle wrote is very relevant.

I saw a speech by Ronald Reagan that was also highly relevant. Dust off all those speeches.

[KostasKouvalis]

Smart chap. I find it funny how Russia was so keen to let go of all its territories, and is now trying to reclaim parts of them. I like this quote someone said, "Don't ever let Russians immigrate to your country, because they will populate an entire region then claim it's Russian and try to take it."

But obviously there were gonna be ethnic Russians left in the former territories, but surely they had the option to live in Russia.

But yeah, he predicted that perfectly!

[Julie4]

I didn't know this quote 🤣

[KostasKouvalis]

It was some random guy on YouTube

[Darklydarkened]

The term ''ethnic russians'' is problematic in Eastern Europe, because Russian state are basically denying the existence of ethncities. To them, Ukranians are Russians who were seperated from real Russians by Mongols

And to them, Polish folk are Russians who are under influence of Germans

This entire fight between these groups started with the emergence of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russian Empire in around 15th century and lasted quite some time and in 19th century, it got very heated

Ignacy Krasicki basically started the Polish literature and national linguistic tradition

Taras Shevchenko was the glorious leader of Ukranian language

And Alexandr Pushkin was a strict Russian ideologist

Russians basically claimed that there is no such thing as Polish, Ukranian etc on the grand scale. The Slavonic Church is succeeded by Russian leaders and anyone who oppose that are traitors to their Slavic heritage

[KostasKouvalis]

@Darklydarkened I partially agree with them, except I would use the term "Slavs" instead of "Russians". Slavs are one people. It's shameful that they're fighting each other and hate each other.

[Darklydarkened]

Yeah but, the state of ''slavs'' was the Kievian Rus, which was located mostly in modern Ukraine

When Mongols dwindled into local Khanates in the area, their tax collectors in Moscow just started to take over the East of Dnieper, Poland was Poland and in the no man's land between were Ukranians

Russians just pose an imperialistic propaganda that these peoples are all to be subjucated to them and Russia extends as long as Berlin

[KostasKouvalis]

@Darklydarkened Maybe the Soviet Union, but in that case, why did the Soviet Union allow itself to dissolve and also let go of all its satellite states?

[Darklydarkened]

They were not economically stable enough. Gorbachev attempted something called гласность (transparency)

They couldn't support their system in a meaningful way. They lost the people, mismanagement and push from Yeltsin supporters to turn into a market economy just ruined them.

Soviet Union started as a revolutionary ideology that desired to erradicate imperialism, erradicate social structures that they saw as feudal and oppressive, they managed to revise the populace in some ways, in many others they failed

Hell, some of them even attempted to bring back ethnic religious identities with a movement called rodnoveri (homeland faith) and bring back pagan identities until Lenin thought it's pointless and disbanded the project

Their revolution brought Russia to modenity

But against American hegemony, they just didn't have will to carry on anymore

[Lliam]

His words didn't reflect modern Russia. He was thinking of the Soviet Union, which was always led by Bolsheviks.

But modern Russia isn't the Soviet Union. It is not trying to spread communism across the globe. There would be no benefit in expanding into Europe militarily. I would prefer to have trading partners who aren't bent on destroying it as is the U. S.

I doubt if de Gaulle even understood who the Bolsheviks were. Hint: They weren't Russian.

[Julie4]

No advantage to military expansion in Europe? Lol it's an interesting analysis but it doesn't stand up to facts and history, nor to the reality of the many strategic and security interests in expanding militarily in Europe.

And as de Gaulle said about the USSR, "Russia will drink communism like blotting paper drinks ink".

[Lliam]

Do you think Russia is communist now?

What countries has Russia tried to conquer since the fall of the USSR?

[Veles]

@Julie4 Russian Federation today isn't just about that old USSR and communism story you're repeat like a parrot in all your questions about Russia. The USSR bid farewell ages ago, you should start living in the present for a change.

[Julie4]

I don't care about communism and the barbarians of the north. I don't even mention communism in my questions about Russia. But I have noticed that Russians, communist or not, always have this tendency to want to invade their neighbors, and Putin is no exception, since he occupies part of Georgian territory and is now waging war in Ukraine.

[Veles]

@Julie4 Do you remember how Nigerians kicked your ass to end your colonies this year? While your country is still busy in exploiting other countries, do not preach Russia to respect the other countries borders, you hypocrites.

[Julie4]

@Veles It's obvious that you know nothing about what's going on in what's been called France Africa 🤣

Russians are violent, underdeveloped people. Europeans used to think of them as the barbarians of the north, and that's what the Russians will always be.

[Veles]

@Julie4
-The society that Nigerians rebelled against this year was not the French. Okay.
-Russia occupied the garbage dump called Ukraine simply because Putin is a barbarian. It's not because Ukraine allows Azov terrorists to kill 8000 Russians for 8 years, banned the Russian language, Zelensky violating peace agreements and calling Azov terrorists "heroes." etc.
-Russians, known for their famous figures in literature, science, sports, art and chess, are just a bunch of uneducated cavemen. In fact we Russians are still trying to discover fire, please don't tell anyone.

It's time to order yourself new pills for your hallucinations.

[Julie4]

@Veles They rebelled, yes, but strategically it doesn't matter, we've already compensated with other alliances.

Russia has always invaded other countries, from Peter the Great to Catherine II, right up to Stalin and Putin.

And yes, Russia will never be part of the same level of civilization as Western Europe. I know that Russia has dreamed of this (see the actions of Peter the Great, among others) to convince itself of this. But it has always been poorer and underdeveloped overall.

[Veles]

@Julie4 Don't worry, the pills will also help you realize that you are Spanish, not French.

[Julie4]

@Veles Oh yeah the barbarians of the north don't know you can have origins. But I was born in France, my parents too, my grandparents too. And anyway being part of Western Europe will always be superior to being part of Russia lol

[BaronReagan]

@Veles Hi girl, are you Russian? I'm interested in Russian culture...

[Darklydarkened]

The poltiicans of yore are demigods compared to clowns of today.

It's amazing the very same system of France managed to deteriorate from De Gaulle to Macron and Le Pen types.

It's same everywhere, from Teddy Rooselt to Biden/Trump

From Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak

In Turkey for one, from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, arguably the most progressive guy that pulls a backwards society to modernity, to goddamn Erdogan

[Julie4]

What is your nationality?

[Darklydarkened]

Turkish and I'm not mentioning Erdogan just for it

The level of deterioration is starkest here.

[Julie4]

I have the impression that Erdogan the Populist dreams of being a sultan.

[Darklydarkened]

It's not just that, even he had forgotten all that nonsense and is trying to convince the people into a synthesis of his counter-revolution and Ataturk's modernist revolution that he professed to despise for decades

The socio cultural structure of Turkish republic is broken down by his islamist agenda.

Turkey, today became a country that cherishes mediocrity, when I was a kid, an average Turk used to come off as a polite, agreeable person, nowadays the lowest of the low are in charge of institutions, governing bodies, media etc.

The populations' level of quality dropped massively.

[Julie4]

Aren't the lower classes seduced by this program to Islamize society?

As for the rest, as Gustave le Bon wrote

"In turbulent times, the great problems that arise every day have few simple and immediate solutions. To follow then the simplistic opinion of exalted crowds quickly leads to disasters."

"Crowds have never been thirsty for truths. When faced with evidence they don't like, they turn away, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them. Whoever knows how to delude them is easily their master; whoever tries to disillusion them is always their victim".

"They (the crowds) immediately go to extremes. The stated suspicion is immediately transformed into indisputable evidence. A beginning of antipathy... immediately becomes a ferocious hatred. "

[Darklydarkened]

Well, I'm almost 32, I don't remember a less islamised country in my memory.

More he pushes this, less religious folk become.

Even religious families complain that their children don't follow their worldview, in turn they try to force more of it and it backfires

A Turkish historian, Emrah Safa Gürkan is right about it ''More you hear the name of something, less of it is actually existing. If you hear democracy, religion, tradition constantly in this society, what you should realise is that they're not present at all'

[Julie4]

That human affairs are complex and full of imperfections

[love_conquers_lust]

He thought this of the same Germany that marched on the Soviets in WWII that slaughtered them? The same Germany that soon went into hyperinflation and its first depression from the Treaty of Versailles?

[Julie4]

He was thinking of Germany, which in spite of the Treaty of Versailles was in fact still politically strong (I refer you to Jacques Bainville's book, The Political Consequences of Peace), of this Germany and Russia, which have always had common economic interests (even if in terms of security, they didn't share the same interests), and above all he was relying on Russia's history, which if you know it well, has always tried to impose itself on Germany.

Besides, it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't really change the basic analysis of Russia.

[love_conquers_lust]

I would think Germany’s industrial prowess would have been what was appealing. They sided against them in WW1.

The US invested heavily in rebuilding Germany after the Treaty screwed them over. That investment turned out to bite them in the ass in the crash of ‘29 because the US stock market was very deregulated with no rules on buying stocks on margins ie. borrowing money from banks to buy stocks.

I don’t recall Russia intervening heavily in German affairs in that period. Their loss after WW2 left them vulnerable to communist reform.

The acquisition of neighboring countries is plausible. but that’s what everyone was doing during both World Wars.

But, to be fair, I didn’t get around to reading a whole lot about Russia before WW1 besides that they were a monarchy.

[Julie4]

Russia didn't wait for the First World War to take an interest in Germany, in fact in Europe. The Russia of Peter the Great, of Catherine II of Russia, in a way up to Putin today, have always wanted to have a say in Europe, hence their immense conquests and of course to have an influence on Germany, which at the time was not yet unified. For example, the Tsar's family had territorial possessions in Germany, even though Germany was not yet united.

[love_conquers_lust]

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Germany%E2%80%93Russia_relations

It’s more complicated than I understood. I might have went over this in World History but I can’t recall everything.

[Wood3nWhal3]

I simply do not. I only analyze that which has to do with the future of the greatest country and power to ever live, MF America. I'm now gonna go empty a clip in my backyard because I live in Texas. The greatest republic and power.

[Anonymous]

You're a cute little feminist girl

[trellbrown84]

We fought the wrong enemy.