Siberia/Russian Far East

[Winter]

For those of you familiar with the history of the lands of Siberia and Far East, this may be of interest... I am not certain how to word this but I will try (please forgive or correct me if I word this incorrectly). I have, over time, read opinions of various people who basically view Siberia and Russian Far East as a colonized or colonial land. Much in the same way that the people of this community view the Anglo colonies (USA, S. Africa, Oceania, etc.) in terms of their relation to actual European civilization. Basically that these lands are to Russia what USA is to Great Britain. I have read many debates over time of people who dispute whether or not this territory is even rightfully "Russian". The issue particularly concerns me as it is where I was born and where I consider my home. I am yet to establish a solid opinion on this and very interested in your opinions on this subject. Is the land rightfully "Russian"? Do Slavs have exclusive rights to these lands?

[M.R.]

In an ideal world, no. But in reality, if Russia doesn't occupy it, China will take it. So basicaly there would be no freedom for the indigenous population there anyway. As for Slavs, I don't believe in pan-Slavism, if it's Russian, it's Russian, that doesn't mean it's mine (as Slovenian) too, just because we're all Slavs.

[NatVox]

It is a matter of geopolitics, like M.R. said. And I don't think that the colonisation of Siberia can be compared to the colonisation of America. Siberia is a natural land of expansion for Europe. As it is for Asia. So we are only left to decide which side we are on. And that cannot be Asia's.

However, at present there is also the question of ethnopolitics for Russia. If Siberia has to be maintaned Russian, it is clear that Western Russia must first be able to survive.

Asia Minor and Northern Africa should have also been natural areas of expansion for Europe. And they were so with Rome. Spain would have set to expand through Northern Africa, if she had not been robbed of her destiny to fight foreign dinastic quarrels from the XVIth century onwards.

[Marulus]

Concerning Siberia, it is interesting to note that no-one conquered it before Russians did, nor it seems that anyone was even remotely interesting in it, as far as the recorded history goes. Mongols under the leadership of Genghiz Khan and his descendants overran half of the world, but failed to turn their hordes northwards, to subdue the Siberain tundra. Nor did the Chinese ever venture so far northwards. The Tartar khanate called Sibir, a name which later came to designate the entire huge area between Ural Mountains and Kamchatka, referred originally to a relatively small strip of territory in the western part of Siberia.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by M.R.

In an ideal world, no. But in reality, if Russia doesn't occupy it, China will take it. So basicaly there would be no freedom for the indigenous population there anyway. As for Slavs, I don't believe in pan-Slavism, if it's Russian, it's Russian, that doesn't mean it's mine (as Slovenian) too, just because we're all Slavs.

I've read a newspapers article once about the Chinese and their expansion towards the Siberia and Russian bordering towns. Apparently, the Russians are concerned about the size of Chinese population in their southern Siberian towns and will resort to a more restrictive immigrant policy and to a more strict border controls. It is certain that in the upcoming years, Russia will have to withstand a tremendous pressure from the side of China and its growing population.

[wilpuri]

It is a geopolitical fact, but considering my background, I find it very hard to find moral and ideological justification for Russian colonialism & imperialism.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by wilpuri

It is a geopolitical fact, but considering my background, I find it very hard to find moral and ideological justification for Russian colonialism & imperialism.

As for me, I was neither justifying nor condemning it, just stating a plain fact that Russians have been there (in Siberia, that is) for the last 450 years at least. Noone had ever conquered that area before, there were only several Palaeo-Siberian tribes there, scattered across the tundra, probably very few in numbers, which did not yield any significant resistance. The case of Russian rule in Finland (1806-1918) and in the Baltic is of entirely different nature and cannot be compared with Siberia.

[wilpuri]

Originally Posted by Marulus

As for me, I was neither justifying nor condemning it, just stating a plain fact that Russians have been there (in Siberia, that is) for the last 450 years at least. Noone had ever conquered that area before, there were only several Palaeo-Siberian tribes there, scattered across the tundra, probably very few in numbers, which did not yield any significant resistance. The case of Russian rule in Finland (1806-1918) and in the Baltic is of entirely different nature and cannot be compared with Siberia.

Finnish autonomy within the Russian empire is one of the most important episodes in Finnish history and the development of Finnish nationhood. I hold no grudge over that period of time despite the russification measures towards the end.

What saddens me most is that so many of our close kindred peoples, who were trapped on the wrong side of the border with the Treaty of Dorpat, have ceased to exist as nations. Many Finns felt (and perhaps still feel) that the spiritual home of Finnish culture was with these peoples, the White Sea Karelians, the East Karelians, the Veps, the Izhorians and the Ingrians, and the Votic people. This was called Karelianism within the art world. I feel that we've lost unique Finnic tribes and peoples, along with their rich cultural traditions, for ever, and in some ways, it has taken a great big chunk out of the spirit of Finnish culture as well as Finnish nationalism, which in the early 20th century was unmistakebly irredentist.

Tsarist Russia was not so much a cultural threat because, at least initially, it was much like Austro-Hungary a dynastic Union, where the emperor presided over many different nations. Later on, after the Crimean war, the trend towards a united and indivisible Russia was stepped up, which of course was in contradiction with the idea of the Finnish state and nationhood which had begun to develop since the 1830's among Finnish intellectuals and bureaucrats.

[Uri]

Originally Posted by Winter

Is the land rightfully "Russian"? Do Slavs have exclusive rights to these lands?

In my opinion, yes, Siberia and the Far East are the natural continuation of Europe and these lands are russian 100% and they should be keeped by the russians towards the chinese inmigration. I have a friend from Birobizhdan, in this area, and he tell me that a lot of russians are upset of the chinese presence in the zone.
Historically, whith the conquest of this inmense territory by the cossacks of Yermak and the exploration of Siberia in the XVII century, these lands entered in the history of european civilization. Before, there were empty lands except for some tatar khanats that had only a superficial control of the area and sparse tribes that more or less welcomed the russian presence (I only know of the Chutkchi of the Bering Area fighting the russians, is it true?). Naturally, the russians take control from it.

[Winter]

Chinese... As mentioned by some here, Chinese immigration is major concern and a serious issue to many in Amur Region (not certain how bad situation is in other regions). When I left in Decembre, Blagoveshchensk was home to largest Chinese immigrant community in entire of Russia, according to local news and I am inclined to believe it. It was common knowledge that a many of them merely paid or bribed Russian "guards" to assist them in various ways to sneak across the border, in other cases there were some known areas where people could literally walk across. You cannot walk down, seemingly, one street in that city without encountering an overbearing and obvious Chinese presence in some capacity. In my experience, worst aspect of this was that most of them you encounter are either unusually rude and disrespectful or very arrogant towards Russians. I remember reading a news article where a local Chinese man was interviewed and boast that "Russians should be down on their knees thanking China for providing immigrants"... that the area was economically depressed and desolate before high influx of Chinese immigrants. First thought I had was whether or not that is true is not the point. There are some things more important than economics. Regardless, hordes of Chinese are not the appropriate answer to economic crisis.

[Loorberitega Pärjatu]

My question would be why this part of the world is not the richest in the world? With all those natural resources... If there only wouldn't be idiotic ideologies and bad managing.

[NatVox]

If you are to make an economy management analysis, make sure that you get enough variables and not only the few that you would like to fit in the equation. As for example a low demography (per sqm) and its incidence in transport communications (roads, rails, etc).