Is Russia too big to be one Country?

AMKC

In my honest opinion I think it is.
I know there is lots of little states in it but not like the USA where they can set there own rules and so on.
If was broke up into to six or so small countries or maybe more maybe 12 it would be better.
So what is other peoples opinion on this?

Smee_Again

I think if you keep talking like that you'll be novichoked.

RandomViewer

Much smaller than it used to be

biko

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

Tom Mann Centuria

biko wrote: »

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

Which smaller nations do you mean from the Soviet era?

I'm not sure what anyone would do with a gigantic area of inhospitable wilderness.

biko

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Which smaller nations do you mean from the Soviet era?

The Soviet Empire was made up of 15 Soviet Republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

But they also invaded Czechoslovakia 1968 for a spell.

Some have their freedom now. Some are still obedient.

Tom Mann Centuria

biko wrote: »

The Soviet Empire was made up of 15 Soviet Republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

But they also invaded Czechoslovakia 1968 for a spell.

Some have their freedom now. Some are still obedient.

Oh yeah, appreciate that, but they are no longer part of Russia on a map are they? They're all their own country now, regardless of an overbearing influence.

Quantum Erasure

No, Russia is grand. China on the other hand...

retalivity

Russia is about 80% empty as well

timmyntc

Wait till you see how big Brazil is..

French Toast

North Eastern Russia seems to be fairly grim.

ancapailldorcha

India's the one that gets me. There had at least been a Russian state for centuries prior to the USSR in the twentieth century that had relentlessly pushed east and conquered the steppe peoples quite easily with firearms. Geopolitics are quite tricky for the Russians given the states the border and their relatively small population relative to the amount of land they have.

India though. The world's biggest democracy, the various cultures, religions, empires and so on that have existed in one subcontinent and now it's a country. I find that truly insane. A similar argument could probably be made about China but there my knowledge is relatively lacking.

Strumms

Russia, by landmass, is by far the biggest country on earth.

By population it isn’t.

The US has more then double Russia’s population... Russia’s population is even predicted to slightly decrease. It’s the 9th most populous.

Gatling

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

No, Russia is grand. China on the other hand...

The Chinese population in Siberia is growing at a rapid rate and locals are concerned china could do a Putin by sending troops to protect their citizens from persocution ,
Really Weird situation.
Many places outside of the major cities in Russia are still in pre ww2 living conditions ,many have no access to the internet or even TV ,alot are solely reliant on radio stations to know what's going on in Russia ,
There was a documentary crew that visited parts of Russia where electricity ran for a few hours aday , water came from a single hand cranked pump ,and the people have never met a single government official or could even describe Putin ,
It might suit being broken up into smaller sovereign States but most wouldn't be able to run as a state having been solely reliant on the Communist party for everything ,
There would need to be a mass modernisation program to bring them into the present with huge investment from somewhere,

titan18

I think a decent chunk of Russia is uninhabitated. Most of it is in the Western part of the country in the Central (Moscow etc) or the Volga (Novgorod/Kazan etc) and then another large amount around St Petersburg. The Far East and Siberian districts make up a giant amount of land but much smaller population numbers. If you take those two districts out as a separate country, it'd likely collapse. Far East would likely end up being consumed by China

titan18

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

India's the one that gets me. There had at least been a Russian state for centuries prior to the USSR in the twentieth century that had relentlessly pushed east and conquered the steppe peoples quite easily with firearms. Geopolitics are quite tricky for the Russians given the states the border and their relatively small population relative to the amount of land they have.

India though. The world's biggest democracy, the various cultures, religions, empires and so on that have existed in one subcontinent and now it's a country. I find that truly insane. A similar argument could probably be made about China but there my knowledge is relatively lacking.

China has always been pretty large rather than independent states like India used to be. You're going back a long long time before that wasn't predominately united. India, i think is mainly back to the Mughals and then the British but before that were separate much like Italy used to be.

Gregor Samsa

biko wrote: »

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

So nothing like the EU at all, really, where every country joined voluntarily, can leave if they wish, and still has their own identity.

Lewis_Benson

Very strange thread topic for boards. Ie.

titan18

biko wrote: »

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

Not really. Russia obviously grew a lot as part of the Soviet Union, but most of what is current Russia has been Russia since the 1500s and 1600s with the Tsardom and the most populous part is dating back further as part of Muscovy. USSR expanded it a lot but most of that terrority (Ukraine etc) is gone from them now and had lost a decent chunk before that after the Soviet revolution in 1918.

Tchaikovsky

It's a federation of republics.

biko

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Oh yeah, appreciate that, but they are no longer part of Russia on a map are they? They're all their own country now, regardless of an overbearing influence.

Yes, under Boris Jeltzin anyone currently inside Russia was made full part of the federation.

Let's choose one - Tuva.
From 1921 to 1944, Tuva constituted a sovereign, independent, but partially recognized nation, acknowledged only by its neighbours the Soviet Union and Mongolia.
In 1944 it was annexed in the Soviet Union, and in 1992 it signed itself into the Russian Federation.

Stovepipe

I'd like a copy of that map in a bigger scale. Where did you get it?

Feisar

Gatling wrote: »

The Chinese population in Siberia is growing at a rapid rate and locals are concerned china could do a Putin by sending troops to protect their citizens from persocution ,
Really Weird situation.
Many places outside of the major cities in Russia are still in pre ww2 living conditions ,many have no access to the internet or even TV ,alot are solely reliant on radio stations to know what's going on in Russia ,
There was a documentary crew that visited parts of Russia where electricity ran for a few hours aday , water came from a single hand cranked pump ,and the people have never met a single government official or could even describe Putin ,
It might suit being broken up into smaller sovereign States but most wouldn't be able to run as a state having been solely reliant on the Communist party for everything ,
There would need to be a mass modernisation program to bring them into the present with huge investment from somewhere,

Not sure if I seen that doc but read or seen something similar. You could be living in the middle of Russia but not really connected to Russia in any meaningful way. Far large swaths of it, it doesn't work as a country.

biko

Stovepipe wrote: »

I'd like a copy of that map in a bigger scale. Where did you get it?

See the watermark AnnaMap.com
or https://annamap.com/russia/russia-map.jpg

ancapailldorcha

Feisar wrote: »

Not sure if I seen that doc but read or seen something similar. You could be living in the middle of Russia but not really connected to Russia in any meaningful way. Far large swaths of it, it doesn't work as a country.

80% of its population is west of the Urals. Any issues which might arise on its Eastern frontier will be difficult to handle for that reason alone, never mind that it has an economy the size of Spain's.

Stovepipe

Vast parts of the country have no road or rail network and rely on helicopters, boats or off-road vehicles for access. Road conditions are third-world outside of the main population centres. In all those regional republics, the local Governor is more relevant than Moscow or Putin. The loss of Ukraine and Belarus, to independence, was critical to Russia's ability to feed itself as they had some of the better transport links and the ability to move large quantities of agricultural produce. Kazakhstan was also an important loss, because of it's importance to the space programme, as Russia pays for access to what it used to own. While today's Russians are in many ways better off, there is still a huge strain of endemic poverty and poor living conditions.

bocaman

No, the result would be increased poverty and chaos. The east has historically been part of Russia for centuries if the country broke up then it would only open up the way for China.

snotboogie

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

India's the one that gets me. There had at least been a Russian state for centuries prior to the USSR in the twentieth century that had relentlessly pushed east and conquered the steppe peoples quite easily with firearms. Geopolitics are quite tricky for the Russians given the states the border and their relatively small population relative to the amount of land they have.

India though. The world's biggest democracy, the various cultures, religions, empires and so on that have existed in one subcontinent and now it's a country. I find that truly insane. A similar argument could probably be made about China but there my knowledge is relatively lacking.

If the CCP ever fell there would be a number of Chinese states that would immediately break off, Tibet and Xinjiang for sure.

Guangdong would make or break the country, if they left to form a Cantonese super state with Hong Kong and Macau (which would have a GDP of about 2.5 trillion USD, putting it on par with India, France and the UK), the other culturally distinct regions like Greater Sichuan, Inner Mongolia and Dongbei would likely follow, effectively breaking up the continent.

Capt'n Midnight

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Which smaller nations do you mean from the Soviet era?

Before WWI Russia included Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, most of Poland and a slice of Romania.

Jinglejangle69

What was Hitler thinking.

Stovepipe

His generals advised him not to, for every very obvious reason, but he insisted and given the ease with which they beat Western Europe, it must have seemed to be a handy job.

PsychoPete

If Russia is reading this, you deserve to be a bigger country

titan18

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What was Hitler thinking.

Tbf, whilst it's pretty impossible to take the whole country without help from the Japanese in the east and probably the Turkish in the caucuses, they did really well for a time. if the Germans had gone Moscow first and succeeded in taking that and the corridor to St Petersburg, they'd likely have cut most of the Soviet industrial capacity and made it very difficult for the Soviets to rebound if the Japanese cut off the pacific.

That or if they had managed to take Britain, they'd have had full reign to bring their full force to Russi and likely would have overwhelmed them faster.

Jinglejangle69

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, whilst it's pretty impossible to take the whole country without help from the Japanese in the east and probably the Turkish in the caucuses, they did really well for a time. if the Germans had gone Moscow first and succeeded in taking that and the corridor to St Petersburg, they'd likely have cut most of the Soviet industrial capacity and made it very difficult for the Soviets to rebound if the Japanese cut off the pacific.

That or if they had managed to take Britain, they'd have had full reign to bring their full force to Russi and likely would have overwhelmed them faster.

They were never gonna win in the end.

Of course they would get off to a good start, but the, population size and geography of Russia was always gonna end one way for the Nazis.

Hitlers worst decision among many bad ones.

whisky_galore

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What was Hitler thinking.

That they were sub human and they'd be easily defeated, simply roll over and be grateful to toil for the Reich.
Same with Westerners (British, Russians, Yanks found out to their cost) and the Japanese, oh these little men won't put up much of a fight, sure they're short sighted too.

mikeym

I heard the Boards.ie mods will run mother Russia when Putin retires

Dont mess with those guys :D:D:D

biko

biko wrote: »

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

There's not that many separatist groups within Russia proper, by and large Russia is in fact largely ethnically Russian. Its about as ethnically Russian as England is ethnically English. About 80%, of course England is declining on that number.

snotboogie

snotboogie wrote: »

If the CCP ever fell there would be a number of Chinese states that would immediately break off, Tibet and Xinjiang for sure.

Guangdong would make or break the country, if they left to form a Cantonese super state with Hong Kong and Macau (which would have a GDP of about 2.5 trillion USD, putting it on par with India, France and the UK), the other culturally distinct regions like Greater Sichuan, Inner Mongolia and Dongbei would likely follow, effectively breaking up the continent.

I have to laugh at the Western prediction of the fall or breakup of countries with fairly homogenous ethnic and cultural similarities. Which is really what binds countries together, not size or lack of it. The EU is unfortunately, more unstable. The UK is, delightfully, much more unstable. I bet the US collapses long before Russia and the Chinese.

china is 91.6474% Han Chinese ( via wiki). Another 1.2% are Zhuang who aren't really considered the much different. Then there's the Manchus who are considered highly Sinicized

titan18

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They were never gonna win in the end.

Of course they would get off to a good start, but the, population size and geography of Russia was always gonna end one way for the Nazis.

Hitlers worst decision among many bad ones.

Unlikely, but I think they could have with better decisions. For one, just focusing on the Eastern Front, if they had treated the captured populations much better (likes of Ukraine etc here), the sizable anti Soviet element of Russia would have swung towards fighting for Germany against the Soviets.

The Germans of course executed loads and treated them horrifically so much that the anti Soviet population just went well Stalin isn't so bad and fought back.

Likely couldn't have captured and held all of it with the way they treated people. With no help from the Japanese, there was always likely to get bogged down at the Urals but likely would have had Stalin sue for peace.

No idea how even if they had succeeded, they would manage to rule a terrority stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals though with how they treated the populations.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

china is 91.6474% Han Chinese ( via wiki). Another 1.2% are Zhuang who aren't really considered the much different. Then there's the Manchus who are considered highly Sinicized

China's east is like Russia's west in the respect that this is where the majority of the population live. West China and East Russia are very sparsely populated.

titan18

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

China's east is like Russia's west in the respect that this is where the majority of the population live. West China and East Russia are very sparsely populated.

Ya, when you look at the province map, Xinjiang, Qinghai and Tibet are massive in comparison to the other provinces (barring Inner Mongolia) and are 3 of the least populous. Haven't been a part of China for very long in comparison to other provinces.

Gatling

titan18 wrote: »

Ya, when you look at the province map, Xinjiang, Qinghai and Tibet are massive in comparison to the other provinces (barring Inner Mongolia) and are 3 of the least populous. Haven't been a part of China for very long in comparison to other provinces.

Look at Siberia a population of 30 +million and makes up something like 70 % of Russias landmass ,but it's sparely populated 1 person for every 3kms,now with a Chinese population of about a million while the Russians government say it's only 30,000 Chinese in Siberia .plenty of places for foreign countries to get a foothold in various parts of russia

pcardin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Before WWI Russia included Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, most of Poland and a slice of Romania.

there was no Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before WWi. As a countries they formed straight after WW1 and were occupied again during WW2 despite being neutral.

Montage of Feck

Lithuania goes way back, was once the largest country in Europe as the polish lithuanian commonwealth.

cj maxx

biko wrote: »

It is too big because it's really a union like EU.
Many smaller nation swallowed up during the Soviet times (some even before) and now Russia won't let them go to find their own destiny.

https://images.app.goo.gl/r6Zo1i28X8VW4iLN6

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

It could be even bigger. I watched this interesting summary recently of why Finland wasn’t annexed by Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6aOk0SiHgI

McGinniesta

AMKC wrote: »

In my honest opinion I think it is.
I know there is lots of little states in it but not like the USA where they can set there own rules and so on.
If was broke up into to six or so small countries or maybe more maybe 12 it would be better.
So what is other peoples opinion on this?

Why?

alchemist33

Until they've won at least 3 All-Irelands in a row, I don't think splitting Russia should even be considered by Congress

play4fun1

pcardin wrote: »

there was no Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before WWi. As a countries they formed straight after WW1 and were occupied again during WW2 despite being neutral.

?
the same as there was no Ireland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

Capt'n Midnight

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What was Hitler thinking.

Russia looked weak after the Winter War with Finland.

Hitler was gambler on a lucky streak.

Germany was running out of money and instead of facing France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, England and Austria in 1938 he got to face each in turn. He was hoping for something like a repeat of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

Russia renounced all territorial claims in Finland (which it had already acknowledged), Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), most of Belarus, and Ukraine. and Poland

...
Russia lost 34% of its population, 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and 26% of its railways. Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks.

A quarter of the tanks used in the invasion of France came from Czechoslovakia.

The Russians were still regrouping from the Winter War when the Germans invaded. Had the Germans been able to attack earlier and not distracted then they might have captured Moscow. But Napoleon did that and still lost.

During the invasion the 6th Panzer Division was held up by a single KV-2 tank. It was a repeat of Dunkirk where German anti tank weapons couldn't take on British Heavy tanks. The Germans didn't even put long barrels back on their tank guns so were out distanced too. Had they invaded later then the Russians would have been better prepared