Putin accuses Ukraine of 'resorting to terrorist methods on instructions of West'

Anadolu News Agency ^ | 3/19/2024 | Elena Teslova

[Zhang Fei]

[You’ve just described the Mongol empire, the paradigm which Moscow copied to overcome all the other cities in the forest zone of what had been Kievan Rus. In 600 years it hasn’t changed all that much.

Look into this “Eurasianism” cult that is influencing Putin now.]

---

The Mongols are the complete opposite. The atomism of Mongol polities is why the Mongol empire started falling apart the day Genghis died. His reign was exceptional in that no one before or since - with the partial exception of Tamerlane - has succeeded in unifying the Mongol and Turkish tribes. Mongol nobles guarded their prerogatives jealously and never fully submitted to their nominal khans even if they were blood siblings. They took great care to maintain their own substantial and well-equipped armies as a hedge against any ruler’s attempt to seize their patrimony.

To the extent Russia’s government is similar to another, it’s the Chinese government, which managed to disinherit hereditary nobles with their own private armies centuries prior. Even without aristocratic rivals, however, power abhors a vacuum and weakness or inattention on the part of the ruler invites challengers.

Chinese history, for instance, is replete with Horatio Alger stories written in blood. The founder of the Han dynasty is said to have been an illiterate peasant whose exploits preceded Spartacus’s by over a century, at a time when hereditary nobles were a perennial threat to the throne. The Ming founder was an itinerant panhandler. Many also-rans of obscure origin came within a hair’s breadth of attaining supreme power, including a man who dubbed himself God’s other Christian son.

If there’s a common thread, it’s bow and scrape until you get the brass ring, then lower the boom on both potential challengers and those who got in your way on the way up. The goal of state propaganda is to inspire obedient minions. In reality, the threat of violent death led both ordinary people and ranking officials to submit to enemies of the throne when all seemed lost.

[Zhang Fei]

[Putin has a thing for the Muslims same as Hitler did. Putin has been sucking up to Iranian Mullahs forever. Hitler admired them and deployed some Balkan Muslims in WW2.]

---

I suspect it’s more balance of power more than anything else. He keeps the factions at each other’s throats so they don’t connive against him. Wisely, as it turns out. If a certain coup plotter had gotten a few more buy-ins from Putin’s direct reports, we might be talking about President Prigozhin today. Christianity’s render unto Caesar works much better for regime stability.

Islam is an extremely fractious religion. Even in Muhammad’s time, Muslims fought each other like cats and dogs. A religion that gives rebels the stamp of approval by saying any outcome is Allah’s will is not something you want to take up as a state religion.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

What are you reading? It was Genghis' SON who conquered the Rus' empire and the Mongols continued to extract tribute from Moscow for another 150 years. Not exactly "atomized".

[Zhang Fei]

[What are you reading? It was Genghis’ SON who conquered the Rus’ empire and the Mongols continued to extract tribute from Moscow for another 150 years. Not exactly “atomized”.]

---

Genghis’s empire split up immediately after he died. One grandson, Kublai, and his titular successor, ruled only over China. With each successive generation, the empire broke up into smaller and smaller pieces, as commanders, royals, aristocrats and foreign recruits alike went into business for themselves.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluid_Civil_War
[The Toluid Civil War was a war of succession fought between Kublai Khan and his younger brother, Ariq Böke, from 1260 to 1264.[1] Möngke Khan died in 1259 with no declared successor, precipitating infighting between members of the Tolui family line for the title of Great Khan that escalated to a civil war.[1] The Toluid Civil War, and the wars that followed it (such as the Berke–Hulagu war and the Kaidu–Kublai war), weakened the authority of the Great Khan over the Mongol Empire and split the empire into autonomous khanates.[2]]

---

This information isn’t particularly obscure. It’s just that a lot of published historical commentators like to throw off random remarks that they think will resonate with reader preconceptions, without actually having to delve into what actually transpired.

[Zhang Fei]

[What are you reading? It was Genghis’ SON who conquered the Rus’ empire and the Mongols continued to extract tribute from Moscow for another 150 years. Not exactly “atomized”.]

---

One indication of how un-centralized even Genghis’s rule involved Mongol armies having to return to Mongolia to wrangle over the succession. This was never an issue in centralized polities. If someone needed to return, it was just the commander himself, without his army, to kiss the new guy’s ring. And he had no say in the succession.

Whereas becoming Genghis’s heir involved a lot of horse-trading. Commanders brought their armies with them for leverage and protection from rivals or even the new ruler, if their preferred candidate lost.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Batu was Genghis’ GRANDson. My error. Mobility of leaders notwithstanding, the Mongol Empire had a single Great Kahn, who was infused with religious authority, which is a critical feature of the system. Next down the ladder were vassels of whom Batu is an example. There was no “atomization”.

A very accurate treatment is found in this web page, which is concise enough for quick reading:

https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/

Vernadsky doesn’t spend a lot of ink on the Mongol period, but he confirms what Kari writes.

Also “Russia and the Golden Horde” by Charles Halperin.

[Zhang Fei]

[Batu was Genghis’ GRANDson. My error. Mobility of leaders notwithstanding, the Mongol Empire had a single Great Kahn, who was infused with religious authority, which is a critical feature of the system. Next down the ladder were vassels of whom Batu is an example. There was no “atomization”.]

---

It certainly was atomized in the sense the aristocrats had their own armies. In a centralized state like China, the armies were on loan from the ruler, and anyone not the ruler who even attempted to stand up his own was guilty of sedition and faced the elimination of his entire family.

Whereas a Mongol aristocrat had his own army or war band by traditional right and often banded with fellow aristocrats or able commoners to fight or kill overbearing rulers. The Oirats who sacked the Chinese capital had numerous puppet rulers in the nominal titular role of Great Khan, but his powers were similar to those of Japanese puppet emperors who headed Japan for 8 centuries while shoguns wielded real authority derived from the troops under their direct command, killing any who failed to toe the line, albeit surreptitiously.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Yuan#Oirat_domination_(1388%E2%80%931478)
[In 1388, the Mongol throne was taken over by Jorightu Khan Yesüder, a descendant of Arik Böke (Tolui’s son), with the support of the Oirats. He abolished the Han-style title of former Yuan dynasty.[29][30][31] In the following year, one of Uskhal Khan’s subjects, Gunashiri, a descendant of Chagatai Khan, founded his own small state called Kara Del in Hami.[32]

The following century saw a succession of Genghisid rulers, many of whom were mere figureheads put on the throne by those warlords who happened to be the most powerful. From the end of the 14th century there appear designations such as “period of small kings” (Бага хаадын үе).[33] On one side stood the Western Mongols and on the other the Eastern Mongols. While the Oirats drew their khans from the descendants of Ariq Böke and other princes, Arugtai of the Asud supported the old Yuan khans of Kublaid descent. The House of Ogedei also briefly attempted to reunite the Mongols under their rule.]

---

In general, the fractiousness that provided Genghis, the scion of a minor tribe, to spread his wings also provided both cadet branches of Genghis’s descendants and talented non-related Mongols the opportunity to become noted war leaders and rulers at the expense of the official royal line. Without talented bureaucrats to prop up less talented rulers, and the division of lands from generation to generation, Mongol kingdoms became like the Rockefeller scions, numerous but not particularly powerful, and subject to being picked off.

[rxh4n1]

“Not in Russia. Russians are religiously conditioned to sacrifice their very lives to advance the policies of their Tsars. They even have a famous opera about it.”

Explain the 1905 & 1917 revolutions.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

aExplain the 1905 & 1917 revolutions.

Explain why neither one changed anything.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

What you describe is unlike what happened in the West. Perhaps you're reading Chinese histories that have a different bias? I wasn't there, and neither were you. What Western historians wrote down from the 15th century onward is well distilled in this excerpt from Kari:

The third era that influenced Russian thought in a great manner is Mongol Russia. In the 1200s, the Mongols conquered Russia. They held Russia for years. That time was cruel. There are a lot of words in Russian, related to torture, taxation, and corruption that come from the Mongol language. Dominance under personal authority was rooted in the administrative culture of the Mongols. That is, there is only one khan that leads. It is he who leads, no one else. Others are passive followers. That one guy leads and takes responsibility and the initiative. When the belief of divine legitimacy to lead is attached to this, the leader will appear fairly tough in their worldview.

The corruption and cruelty also come from the Mongol era. During Mongol rule, the only ways to survive were lying, corruption, and violence. This still lives very deep in Russia’s strategic culture. When Mongol rule ended, the Mongols did not just pack their bags and disappear from Russia. Instead, they mixed with the locals. So the traditions also stayed with the people. In particular, to the leading caste. The Mongols who had previously ruled the country merged into the ruling layers, which is still visible today.

[Zhang Fei]

[What you describe is unlike what happened in the West. Perhaps you’re reading Chinese histories that have a different bias? I wasn’t there, and neither were you. What Western historians wrote down from the 15th century onward is well distilled in this excerpt from Kari:
The third era that influenced Russian thought in a great manner is Mongol Russia. In the 1200s, the Mongols conquered Russia. They held Russia for years. That time was cruel. There are a lot of words in Russian, related to torture, taxation, and corruption that come from the Mongol language. Dominance under personal authority was rooted in the administrative culture of the Mongols. That is, there is only one khan that leads. It is he who leads, no one else. Others are passive followers. That one guy leads and takes responsibility and the initiative. When the belief of divine legitimacy to lead is attached to this, the leader will appear fairly tough in their worldview.

The corruption and cruelty also come from the Mongol era. During Mongol rule, the only ways to survive were lying, corruption, and violence. This still lives very deep in Russia’s strategic culture. When Mongol rule ended, the Mongols did not just pack their bags and disappear from Russia. Instead, they mixed with the locals. So the traditions also stayed with the people. In particular, to the leading caste. The Mongols who had previously ruled the country merged into the ruling layers, which is still visible today.]

---

His thesis is based on personal prejudice and literal ignorance, not historical fact. Most of these people never bothered to learn anything about history outside of their particular specialties and don’t particularly want to. And that’s fine. What’s clear is he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I understand you, as a layman, having neither the interest nor the inclination to find out. As a self-proclaimed expert, he should know. He doesn’t.

I am neither Chinese nor literate in Chinese. I “know” all of the things you do through this guy. Then I took a closer look, over the years, and discovered it was complete nonsense, through looking at names, dates and battles. In essence, for a people supposedly ruled by khans worshipped as gods, they sure seem to fight their rulers a lot and have these private armies very similar to European ones possessed by men like Warwick and Buckingham, except theirs are kingmaker armies capable of taking the throne and killing the khan himself.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

I can’t hold a serious discussion with someone who needs to “win the internet” by ignoring/denying serious historians like Vernadsky and Halperin.

[Zhang Fei]

[Explain why neither one changed anything.]

---

Why would they change anything? These were just attempts to gain supreme power with new fig leaves. Even the post-revolution carnage resembled that of the past. The rulers killed potential challengers among the men who had helped them take power and whacked large numbers of the ancien regime. New boss, same as the old boss.

Why did no one attempt to stop the slide towards dictatorship? No one felt particularly motivated to risk his one and only neck for some nebulous greater good. Traditionally, the only worthwhile reason for doing so was to take the throne personally or to gain significant reward by backing someone with the potential to win it. Who moved to stop Napoleon from crowning himself emperor? After an abortive burst of enthusiasm ended by Octavian’s and Mark Antony’s victory, who else stood up to restore the Roman Republic, to once again rid Rome of its kings?

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Why did no one attempt to stop the slide towards dictatorship?

Russians LIKE dictatorship. Many still revered Stalin even after the USSR collapsed. Go figure.

[Zhang Fei]

[I can’t hold a serious discussion with someone who needs to “win the internet” by ignoring/denying serious historians like Vernadsky and Halperin.]

---

A serious attitude can’t paper over the cognitive dissonance introduced by events that contradict their narratives. They are starting with an assumption of Mongol subservience and ignoring the sheer anarchy of Mongol tribal interactions because it doesn’t fit their narrative. I understand the point of theory is so we don’t have to think of everything at the same time. What these people are doing, however, isn’t theory - it’s obscurantism, the denial of facts apparent at first glance.

[Zhang Fei]

[Russians LIKE dictatorship. Many still revered Stalin even after the USSR collapsed. Go figure.]

---

Why wouldn’t some Russians like Stalin? Many of these are those who lost out after the Soviet Union collapsed. You know how Russian aristocrats mostly hated the Bolsheviks? Many who approved of the Communists had a role in killing the property owners and members of the prior regime purged after Red October. Of course they liked Stalin. They got a leg up, became part of the new ruling house after the Bolsheviks won. Losing their aristocratic privileges with the Soviet collapse stung, just as Tsarist blue bloods were aghast that theIr power and privileges had vanished with the ascent of the Bolsheviks.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

What these people are doing, however, isn’t theory - it’s obscurantism, the denial of facts apparent at first glance.

Generations of historians' work lies behind what I referenced. Now you come along and throw all that into the weeds all by yourself. This has gotten entirely too "woke" for me.

[Zhang Fei]

[Generations of historians’ work lies behind what I referenced. Now you come along and throw all that into the weeds all by yourself. This has gotten entirely too “woke” for me.]

---

You’re entirely too married to narrative. You don’t need to rely on narratives any more. You can find out about events as they actually happened and see if the narratives match up. I read the same things you did and took them as gospel. Then I looked at the events themselves and discovered that the narratives were nonsensical.

If the Khan’s authority was so overweening and his underlings were so submissive, why did so many Mongol civil wars occur? Why did so many rank and file Mongols throw in their lot with their commanders to rise against the Khan if they loved him so much? And why did Mongol commanders in charge of Muslim territories convert to Islam if the reigning Khan was, in their minds, a living God?

History isn’t an esoteric and abstruse thing like math and sciences where you need serious intellectual horsepower or it’s beyond your ken. The more I read of this stuff, the more contempt I have for the academics who come up with this baloney. What they’re saying, vs actual events, is like hearing that Roman slaves were happy and healthy, then hearing about the three Servile Wars.

[DUMBGRUNT]

—”They even have a famous opera about it...

Roman rulers were semi-divine, as were the ruling houses of Alexander and China’s First Emperor, at least in the way they depicted themselves to the hoi polloi.”

Some legends are so powerful they are recycled.
The Man Who Would Be King by Kipling 1800s.

The Man Who Would Be King, movie 1975.

That Roxane must have been a looker, with good teeth.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Zhang Fei.