Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j85fphw wrote

When and how did "Eurasia" become a byword for the post-Soviet space?

My understanding of Eurasia had always been the combination of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. That's what I was taught in elementary school. Then I get to graduate school, and everybody's referring to Central Asia or former Soviet states as "Eurasia." WTF?

1

TheBattler t1_j86x5wv wrote

IIRC, the earliest usage of the word "Eurasian" was used to describe the children of British colonists and their Indian wives.

Anyway, I saw in another comment that you seem to be pretty annoyed by this, but man, language is messy; words change meaning over time, and the same word has different meanings in different contexts.

Like if I told you I'm amped up, I'm not describing the amount of elecrical current in my body.

3

[deleted] t1_j889efi wrote

You're not wrong. I deleted my comment.

My frustration stems from the fact that I applied to a "Russian & Eurasian Studies" program, thinking that it was simply focusing on Russia's place within the broader Eurasia, only to get here and find out it's just a post-Soviet studies program.

Of course, I now know this is par for the course throughout Western universities, think tanks, etc. But as a first-gen college student from a poor area of the U.S., I had no way of knowing this beforehand. I was going off of what I was taught, and it makes me feel misled.

Furthermore, I think there's a strong argument that what I thought this program would be makes more sense in the 21st century than straight up area studies.

2

quantdave t1_j89082y wrote

That sucks. I had a course (unrelated) being changed halfway through with all of my intended options being scrapped, so i feel the pain of not getting the course you wanted. It's always best to get the details before accepting, but my experience is that you can't even rely on that.

2

[deleted] t1_j899e6r wrote

That's the thing - I only knew of 1 Eurasia, the Eurasia that I was taught in elementary school, so why would I think it was anything different?

1

quantdave t1_j89j7f4 wrote

Yes, I think I only encountered it in the 2000s, and even now it's not that common outside academia. Hopefully the fad will pass.

1

quantdave t1_j85z7ys wrote

Indeed, it's most frustrating for those of us who use it for the wider whole. The concept in this narrower sense was originally Russian, seeking to emphasise the cultural distinctiveness of the Tsarist and later Soviet space in relation to western & central Europe - some seeking in it a "greater Russian" identity, others a non-nationalist fusion of European and Asiatic elements.

Western usage seems to derive from post-Soviet scholars and political commentators for whom the Soviet-era concept offered a more convenient label than "former USSR". The less objectionable "northern Eurasia" enjoyed a brief vogue but was apparently too long for those who popularise these things.

And it gets even messier: the journal Soviet Studies became Europe-Asia Studies, while its peer Eurasian Studies covers a distinct though overlapping area "from the Balkans to Central Asia and Iran". I'm sticking with the original meaning.

2

Helmut1642 t1_j85zjbn wrote

The Soviet Union stretched from East Germany to the Pacific ocean with many aligned states or at least using Soviet military equipment in the middle east. The Soviet had close trade and political links leading the to some Western commentators to use the "Eurasia" for a shorthand for this area. This usage of the term lacks nuance but is not broadly inaccurate if talking about modern history.

2

Charming-Aardvark794 t1_j86f47i wrote

east germany was not part of the soviet union btw

2

shantipole t1_j88waqx wrote

Most of "Eastern Europe" was formally independent of the Soviet Union. But, the Soviet hegemony absolutely did include Poland, East Germany, etc., (and considering Russian/Soviet ambitions have never particularly been satisfied with their current borders), making them de facto part of the Soviet Union.

2

quantdave t1_j8baa3a wrote

The USSR was actually pretty definite about its borders: its sphere of influence and network of satellites or allies (like the USA's) were less fixed. Poland and East Germany weren't a de facto part of the USSR any more than various Central American countries were part of the US, rather they were a part of the Soviet bloc and expected to toe the line to varying degrees. Poland's communist leaders actually exercised considerable independence after 1956, a luxury not available to the frontline GDR.

2

shantipole t1_j8dr52d wrote

Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia 1963. Afghanistan 1979.

2

quantdave t1_j8ecubh wrote

US: Panama 1903, Mexico 1914 & 1916, Haiti 1915, Dominican Republic 1916, Russia(!) 1918, Nicaragua 1926, Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 1965, Dominican Republic 1965, Cambodia 1970, Laos 1971, Lebanon 1982, Grenada 1983, Iraq 1991, Somalia 1992, Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, not counting selective airstrikes, limited interventions or backing for local proxies or third-party interventions. Were all those countries de facto parts of the US?

Czechoslovakia was 1968, btw.

1

shantipole t1_j8epf0s wrote

Thanks RE the Czechoslovakia date. I looked it up and still managed to type it wrong.

The Monroe Doctrine is absolutely an attempt by the US to be the sole hegemon over the Western Hemisphere. There was any question that this is/was the case? Ditto the "world's policeman"/pax americana that covers the other situations--is anyone seriously disputing that this is a hegemonic situation?

(Whether you think that it's a good situation is a separate question).

However, and this isn't an accusation against you personally, your list is a classic whataboutism. Whether the USSR and now Russia have done some stuff isn't disproven if the USA has done similar stuff. I pointed out unambiguous historical episodes of just post-WW2 USSR invading and/or treating its neighbors as if they were under de facto USSR control (I could have added current events to the list--just the involvement of Belarus and Chechnya in the Ukraine conflict is really good example of my point--but those are too recent to be considered "history"). Can you dispute that those episodes occured or that they show hegemony by the USSR?

1

quantdave t1_j8eu043 wrote

The issue isn't the exercise of hegemony in claimed spheres of influence - both superpowers obviously did that - it's whether such acts make the country subject to such action a "de facto part" of the hegemonic power as you claimed. If they do in the Soviet case but not in the US one, then why?

I wasn't engaging in whataboutery to disprove or minimise any act, merely illustrating that such projection of power does not amount to de facto annexation - unless you believe that in both cases it does, which at least has the virtue of consistency.

1

shantipole t1_j8g7rcx wrote

You dragged the US into the conversation and are now attempting to make a point about the USSR based on what the US has or hasn't done. I'm sorry you can't see it, but that is classic whataboutism.

Not engaging in whataboutism would involve you trying to show how the Hungarian and Czech experiences aren't the USSR treating them as de facto parts of it/mere extensions of Moscow's will. How Poland got away with the "Polish October" in 1956 might be a good place to start. You'll also want to explain away things like overthrowing the Hungarian government that was trying to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact in 1956.

It would also involve addressing how the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't the USSR trying to expand its borders (the second part of my point). You might also want to take a detour to discuss if Imperial and post-USSR Russian grand strategy was actually different from USSR grand strategy, or whether it's consistently been a policy of Russian imperialism.

1

quantdave t1_j8h7l4r wrote

You were the one making the initial assertion: to apply it to one side but not the other is just double standards.

Had Hungary and Czechoslovakia been de facto parts of the USSR, 1956 and 1968 would never have arisen: that Moscow was reduced to sending in its tanks underlines the limitations of its political fiat. It's for you to explain how Poland got away with its different course: had your claim been valid, that couldn't have happened.

It's also for you to support the claim that in Afghanistan the USSR was "trying to expand its borders". Afghanistan was the last thing Moscow wanted in its territory: it hadn't wanted to go in at all, and only the prospect of a deeply hostile regime on its central Asian border drew it in.

Yours seems a rather absolutist two-dimensional take: intervention = de facto annexation. I invite you again to consider whether this applies to US military actions, and if not, why not?

1

shantipole t1_j8i7n6p wrote

Good luck with the living under a bridge and demanding tolls. Watch out for goats.

1

quantdave t1_j8j8aak wrote

So you've nothing coherent to add. Oh well.

1