I watched the video about "The Break-up of Russia" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqYZqNpLQb8). Interesting. I agree with his conclusions, but for very different reasons. His reasoning seems to be that Russia will fall apart because of racial tensions. My reasoning is that Russia will fall apart for economic reasons and because of lack of cohesion.
Preable to my explanation:
As I say to people: Modern Russia IS NOT The Soviet Union WAS NOT The Russian Empire. There is obviously continuity between them but they are not (and will not become) the same. This may be one of Putin's major mistakes.
A metaphor: The fire brigade will point out that a fire needs three things: fuel, oxidant and a source of ignition. You need all three to have a fire.
Another metaphor: In a lot of things you get a balance between opposing forces. There can be an attractive force and a repulsive force. When one changes then the balance point changes.
I'm going to use Wikipedia as my sole source. Not entirely reliable but it's a starting point.
Introduction - The problem:
OK. During Soviet times there was a strong cohesive force which bound the SU together. Like it or not, many of the ordinary people _believed_ in the Communist Party. Soviet Communism was a religion. Many thought that though life was hard now, they were building a better tomorrow, if not for themselves, then for their children or grandchildren. They may have been deluded but they believed it. This belief helped bind the constituent republics and the various ethnic groups.
The Russian Empire was expanding imperial colonialism. As far as the colonists were concerned they were expanding into terra nullus, empty space. The russians expanded east until they encountered China or the Japanese coming the other way. Any cohesion was provided by racism and force. Those times are mostly gone.
The ideological foundations of the SU have vanished. The binding force of Communism has gone. Putin has not replaced it with anything equivalent, and certainly not with anything which has the same power. There is no "Putinism". I don't think he has attempted to create a personality cult like Stalin; if he has, then he has failed. Though maybe even with the current mess, I still think he has a more powerful image than many Western leaders. The most he seems to have created (in this respect) is a particular kind of nationalism. And the thing is, that his "nationalism" is focused on Russia west of the Urals. It may have a binding effect there, but it has a different effect elsewhere.
Observation:
The more I learn about Russia and the ex-Soviet states the less I know. Until recently (last couple of years) I viewed Russia East of the Urals as "Siberia". That's mistaken, at least in part. Learning about Russia is like a weird lucky dip. You never know what you are going to find, and when you find it, you never know whether it is representative or not.
Russia East of the Urals
Russia is divided up in all sorts of different ways. This is one of those cases where "the more I learn the less I know". There are lots of different subdivisions (Oblasts, Krais, Okrugs, Riyons and nominally independent Republics), all within Russia. The arrangements are not strictly hierarchical either. There are all sorts of anomalies and exceptions. If you want an example of strangeness, look at "The Jewish Autonomous Okrug" (part of the Far Eastern Federal District)
The arrangement I am going to reference is "Federal Districts":
Federal Districts are enormous - but notice how the Western ones are smaller.
The Far East
Specifically I am going to look at the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD):
Some numbers:
- Area: 7 million km2
- Population: 8.4 million
- Population density: 1.2 /km2 = 3.1 people per square mile!
Compare that with the EU (not for political reasons, just size and diversity)
- Area: 4.2 million km2
- Population: 447 million
- Population density: 106 /km2
The population of the island of Ireland is 6.6 million, or if you prefer, the population of Greater London is 8.9 million.
The FEFD is 1.5 to twice the area of the EU. The EU has 100 times the population density of FEFD!
The population of the FEFD is comparable with the island of Ireland or Greater London!
Just like everywhere else, the population of the FEFD is concentrated in cities. I haven't found any useful figures for the how it is divided but I can imagine what effect that has on the population density of the hinterland.
Now look at the Ethnic composition of the population of the FEFD. All these "ethnicity" figures suffer from the problem that the numbers for the minorities get fragmented. In most cases I think it is appropriate to consider "Russians versus the rest" or maybe "Russians+Western SU Republics versus the rest".
However you cut it, 78% of the FEFD identify as Russian!
My interpretation of this is that before the settlers came in the 16th to 19th Century this was a sparcely populated area with nomadic or semi-settled peoples. "Russians" (and other groups) colonised the FEFD. Often they had no choice. They overlaid the indigeneous populations. Compare this to British colonisation of USA/Canada/Australia/NZ. If this is the case, then the indigenous peoples will be mostly in the hinterland.
There may be ethnic tensions in parts of Russia, but ethnic independence is not going to drive a separatist movement in FEFD.
I don't know what the indigenous groups want, but my belief is that many of them would like access to the benefits of modern life, some want to migrate to the cities and others would just like to be left alone. They may be discontented but they will not revolt.
The non-Russian, non-indigenous people probably feel ties towards their ancestral homes but they are in a (very small) minority. Again, they may be discontented but they will not revolt, and if they did, they would not be effective.
Now let's look at population change.
One specific component of the FEFD is Primorsky Krai (literally "Seaside" Krai).
Population: 2 million and is declining. But look at the map and compare the area of PK with that of FEFD.
The population is 92% ethnic Russian. Once again, _Ethnic_ independence is not going to drive separatism.
The human fertility rate is low between 1.5 and 1.7 for period between 2009 and 2016.
My extrapolation from these figures is that the population of PK will decline to between 1.5 and 1.7 million in 25 years (1 generation), say 2050 (I'm assuming that a fertility rate of 2 is necessary to maintain population).
Most of the Russian population of the Far East are descendants of people who arrived there in the past 150 years. Many were exiles, prisoners, were forcibly relocated or transferred to support Soviet mega-projects which are now no longer relevant. These are people who may feel "Russian" but have reasons to distrust the centre.
My perception is that there is dissatisfaction among the Russian population in the Far East and Siberia with how they are treated compared by "the centre" (the Moscow - St Petersburg axis). I have anecdotal evidence for this, but it is self-selecting and therefore biased.
Economy
The economy of the Far East and Siberia is based on extractive industries (mining and forestry) and heavy manufacturing. Infrastructure (roads and railways) is poor. Energy is provided largely by fossil fuels, especially coal. The Far East or maybe Primorsky Krai have huge natural resources but very sparse population.
The Triggering Spark:
I have seen reports that Putin is favouring using troops from Siberia and the Far East in Ukraine. That is to say - he is favouring the Moscow - St Petersburg region. This is one of several places where his policies are, shall we say, "confused". On the one hand he describes Ukrainians as "brothers" but then the actions on the ground could be designed to alienate ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If he is using troops from Siberia, and they are suffering badly, then that will create a groundswell of disaffection. Here is an example from a town close to Novosibirsk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74th_Separate_Guards_Motor_Rifle_Brigade#2022_invasion_of_Ukraine
Conclusion:
My conclusion is that there is enough potential in the Soviet Far East to "drive it outwards" and not enough cohesive force to retain it and "pull it towards the centre (Moscow)". Moscow does not have the power to retain control of the Far East by force, but the population of the Far East retain a cultural and sentimental attachment to "Greater Russia".
The conflict in Ukraine may provide a further outward force driving opinion in Siberia and the Far East away from the centre.
China would benefit from closer relations with the Far East, but does not need to subdue it. Instead of a "revolution" or "withdrawal" of the Far East (in whatever form) from the Russian Federation, I would suggest that a "transfer of emphasis" is more likely. The Far East and Siberia may develop stronger economic ties with China (ignoring Moscow) while still claiming to be part of the political structure called the Russian Federation. You could argue that some of this was happening before the Ukraine crisis and that it will simply continue with China ignoring sanctions, possibly by using North Korea as a proxy.
