THE SICK MAN OF EURASIA: HOW RUSSIA IS FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

by Cemil Kerimoglu

In order to comprehend Russia better and to predict its future life trajectory, western scholars have long been trying to find historical analogues to Russian imperial expansion. Not unexpectedly, they are often tempted to refer to European history for inspiration. Oftentimes, Russia has been compared to European colonial empires. Sometimes to the USA. I even heard some analogies being drawn with the Habsburg Empire.

However all these comparisons are very strenous at best, if not utterly misleading. Because in its essence, Russia has never been European. In its state structure, political traditions, ways of conducting war it was the successor of the Golden Horde, a Mongol state that emerged in western Eurasia after the break-up of Genghis Khan’s empire. Most importantly, its very founding ethos was Asian in its origin. Therefore if one wants to find historical analogies one must search for them in the history of Middle East and Asia.

One distinguishing factor for Russia was that it was an expansionist Asian state that thrust itself deep into Europe and was influenced by its culture & techological advancements in the process of its expansion, although as we shall see, this influence remained superficial. There's only one other similar example in history, which is the Ottoman Empire.

Similarities between Russia and Ottoman Empire

A closer look into Russian history, especially in view of current events, would thus reveal a lot of similarities with the Ottoman Empire. Russia (including its various incarnations) has been closely following a similar trajectory, albeit with a delay of approximately 1-2 centuries, which, however, due to history unraveling at a faster pace in the modern world can be very much shortened.

In order to understand the life cycle of the Russian state, the logic of its expansion and evolution, its relations with European powers and more importantly to predict its future trajectory with high degree of probability one should, therefore, look into Turkish history, more specifically into Ottoman history, rather than looking for historical analogies in Europe.

Indeed, the similarities between Muscovite-Russian and Ottoman states are quite staggering even up to some trifling details. Both started out as insignificant principalities at the periphery of their respective realms, both of which were fractured and went into decline after Mongol invasions.

Ottoman principality emerged at the northwestern periphery of Asia Minor as one of many Turkic principalities ("beyliks") after their predecessor, the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum succumbed to Mongol invasion. Similarly, the Grand Duchy of Moscow - the predecessor of the future Russian state, emerged as a vassal of the Golden Horde at the northeastern periphery of Eastern Europe as one of the many principalities, after their predecessor, the Kyivan Rus', also was destroyed by Mongol invasion.

Both started out as weak and insignificant peripheral statelets. But through a combination of their propitiuous geographical location, being surrounded by weak neighbours, cunning diplomacy of their rulers and basically sheer luck caused by certain historical contingencies they had gradually accumulated lands and resources, which enabled their rise. And after a certain tipping point was reached they emerged as great powers and unleashed the full potential they had amassed in decades prior. First gradually, then suddenly.

A very crucial feature uniting these two medieval states was that their identity, which also served as the guiding ethos for their expansion, was messianic in nature and thus was based on spreading a creed - Islam in the case of Ottoman Turks and Orthodox Christianity in the case of Muscovite Russians.

Both of them underwent processes of Europeanization and, through their conquests in Europe, incorporated a substantial proportion of Europeans within their borders, who, in turn, came to be the main civilizing components in those states and whose efforts were indispensible in making them great powers.

Ottoman Empire had acquired a large number of Greeks and southern Slavs as its subjects in the 15-16th centuries, who assumed important roles in the state adminisitration and military, and whose efforts were decisive in turning it into the greatest military power in Europe of the time. Also later, in the 19th century, Ottoman Empire sought to modernize to be able to compete with the leading European powers. For that purpose different specialists from Europe were invited to settle in the country.

Muscovy, in turn, embarked on its path of Europeanization in the 17th century with the acquisition of Ukraine, with its sophisticated religious thinkers, philosophers and craftsmen who became the educators of Muscovite-Russians and brought with them western learning and technical advancements. Later, starting from the rule of Peter I, throughout the 18th and 19th centuries Russia received a huge influx of German settlers who brought the Europeanization process even further and established it as one of the leading European powers.

However, for both empires those Europeanization efforts were ultimately superficial and did not fundamentally alter the underlying structures and values of their respective societies. The main difference between them was the extent to which they were carried out. Russia's efforts were more extensive and wide-reaching than those of the Ottoman Empire, but, in the end, they still remained largely on the surface. In spite of this fact, due to the more extensive nature of the Europeanization process that took place in Russia, it created a false impression among westerners of being a European country and belonging to European civilization.

The undoing of the Ottoman Empire was in that as its expansionist drive and military might waned it had nothing else to offer in a cultural-civilizational sense. Its guiding ethos had no place in European modernity and it couldn’t keep up with cultural & technological developments in Europe. And a similar fate awaits Russia too.

The trajectory for Russian disintegration

Since, as we can see, in its origins, expansion and interactions with the West, Russia has followed a very similar pattern to that of the Ottoman Empire, then it's reasonable to assume that its decay and disintegration will also follow along similar lines.

When thinking about the possible disintegration and eventual collapse of Russia, most people assume some "big bang" like scenario - i.e., that at one particular moment Russia will instantly fall into pieces and various different independent states will prop up on its territory immediately. And such a premise leads to the rejection of the very idea of the collapse of Russia.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this process can last many decades, and be exactly that - a process, instead of a one-time event. Russia will continue to lose territories and gradually, one after another, different regions and national republics will attain their independence. When one imagines it like that, the idea of the break-up of Russia doesn’t seem so unlikely anymore and fits into general historical patterns. Again, looking into Ottoman history will be useful in this regard.

Ottoman Empire didn't collapse in one fell swoop. In fact, its retreat from Europe spread over more than two centuries, starting from its failed Siege of Vienna in 1683 and the Great Turkish War (1683-1699) that followed, in the course of which the coalition of European states pushed the Ottomans away from Central Europe. This series of wars ended with the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) in which Ottoman Empire, for the first time, sustained major territorial losses and began its centuries-long decline. In the process, its other captive nations also gradually gained their independence - Serbia in 1817, Greece in 1830, Bulgaria in 1878. Later, as a result of Balkan Wars in the beginning of the 20th century, Ottomans lost some more territories to those countries. In the meantime, they also gradually lost their vassal states in North Africa to Great Britain (Egypt), France (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia) and Italy (Libya).

Battle of Vienna (1683)

Likewise, one must be aware that Russia has in fact been continuously shrinking in territory since 1917. After the First World War it permanently lost Finland and Poland. After 1991 it lost all the current post-Soviet republics. Thus, there's no reason to assume that somehow this process woud now stop.

In this regard, it’s tempting to draw historical parallels between the Siege of Vienna in 1683 and Russia’s failed attempt to capture Kyiv in February/March of last year. Its attempt to capture Vienna was Ottoman Empire’s last breath. By that time it had already lost its expansionist drive and entered the phase of decline. With that last, eventually unsuccessful, thrust it had used up all its remaining energy for conquest.

Likewise, even prior to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia had long lost its ability to wage any serious full-scale war. The territories that it managed to snatch in 2014 and 2022 from Ukraine, from a country that until last year was basically defenseless and in the midst of a painful recovery and nation-building process, is the most Russia is currently capable of. Its latest war of aggression against Ukraine will therefore likely exhaust its last remaining bit of barbarian expansionist energy.

Thus, the failed Siege of Kyiv might end up being Russia’s “Siege of Vienna”. And the Ukrainian defense which was followed by counter-offensive with support of Western coalition partners can be compared to the War of the Holy League that could commence the next round of major Russian retreat and territorial losses. In the process, the secessions of national republics like Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Ichkeria (Chechnya), and the peripheral regions with ethnic "Russian" majority like Ingria, Novgorod, Pskov and Kaliningrad (Königsberg), for instance, can constitute the next phase of “shrinkig” of the territory of the Russian Empire after 1991.

Battle of Kyiv (2022)

Moreover, Russia's latest ideological convulsions, including the concepts justifying its perpetuation are also reminiscent of the late Ottoman Empire. In the second half of the 19th century there emerged the concept of “Ottomanism” and Ottoman identity peddled by proponents of preserving the empire. It was meant to appeal to and unite all the different ethnicities and religious groups that constituted the crumbling state. Needless to say, Ottoman identity was an entirely artificial and vapid contrivance created in a feeble attempt to prevent the inevitable dissolution of the empire. It found no acceptance among its subjects.

Now, the idea of the "Russian world" that Russia peddles to justify its continuation and expansion is strongly reminiscent of that vapid notion of Ottomanism. It aims to appeal to various peoples who differ from each other drastically (both culturally and ethnically) and want nothing to do with the unitary Russian state.

In the same way that the idea of “Ottomanism” was artificial and meant to appeal to a very disparate population comprised of Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Armenians, Arabs and more, the “Russian” identity similarly aims to keep together (and even forcefully bring together, as we can see in Russia’s treatment of Ukraine) groups of people with largely different ethnic makeups, historical memories, regional culture and interests.

The idea of "Russian" identity is an artificial one, even when it is used as an ethnonym. Within Russia irreconcilable differences exist not only between "ethnic Russians" and people of other ethnicities that are currently the subjects of the Russian Federation (e.g., Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Dagestanis etc.) but also among those who are regarded as "ethnic Russians" as well. "Russians" of St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Pskov or Smolensk, for example, are very different from "Russians" in the Urals or Siberia. Although they speak the same mother tongue and identify with the same ethnonym, for all intents and purposes they constitute different ethnicities/nations with different interests. Which means their continued co-existence within a unified state is an artificial situation much like the co-existence of Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Armenians and others within awas no longer tenable in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.

The West was not interested in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire

It's important to note that the whole decades/centuries-long process of decay and disintegration of the Ottoman state was accompanied by the reluctance of western powers like Great Britain and France to expedite it and, in fact, their unwillingness to see it actualized. On the contrary, they were doing everything to prevent this from happening.

In the 19th century Ottoman Empire was regarded as the "sick man of Europe" and dragged on solely thanks to the balance politics played by those major European powers. They were of the opinion that the continued existence of Ottoman Empire was necessary to preserve the balance of power in Europe at the time. Its main role was to serve as a bulwark against Russia and keep in check its expansionist aspirations towards the southern seas.

Ottoman Empire was “the sick man of Europe” in the 19th century.

Therefore, although the Ottoman state was on the brink of collapse in the 19th century already, Great Britain and France, for a long time, were keen on preventing such an outcome. They even fought a war to protect it - i.e., the Crimean War of 1853-1856 against Russia. Also in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 it was only the threat of British involvement on the Turkish side that prevented Russia from capturing Constantinople, which would understandably have lead to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire already in late 19th century.

Granted, they did assist Serbian and Greek revolutionaries, for example, in their fight for independence, but only after the fact. After Greeks and Serbs impressed the whole Europe with their courage and dedication, and thus it became clear that they will prevail eventually. In this regard, the similar reluctance of the West to help Ukraine in the first weeks and months of the full-scale Russian invasion comes to mind. Not to mention leaving it in the lurch since 2014 when Russia started its aggression. Like Greeks and Serbs in the 19th century, Ukrainians with their valiance, perseverance and fighting skills simply left no other choice for any person with moral integrity than to help them in their fight.

Only when it became crystal clear at the turn of the 20th century that this archaic entity was hopelessly irredeemable and when its continued existence stopped serving their interests, did the western powers let it go. What changed is that a new and much more powerful rival emerged in Europe, namely Germany. Within this new constellation, Russia suddenly turned from a rival to a useful ally to keep Germany in check. In addition, Ottoman Empire started steering away towards Germany's sphere of influence. Thus its use case was gone.

What followed was an alliance signed between Great Britain, France and Russia in 1907 which gave birth to the Triple Entente. From that moment onwards, throughout the whole 20th century and up to the current day, western powers were interested in keeping Russia intact rather than seeing it collapse and disintegrate.

Russia survived the 20th century solely thanks to western help

Russia is following in the footsteps of the Ottoman Empire. Like the latter was dubbed as the "sick man of Europe" in the 19th century, Russia is currently the "sick man of Eurasia" - a civilizational backwater without any purpose. And like its 19th century counterpart, its continued existence has been propped up by the support of western powers and their stubborn reluctance to come to terms with its disintegration.

In fact, Russia has been in such a "sick man" state since 1917 and could have been finished off already in the 20th century. But every single time western powers came to its rescue.

Contrary to the claims of Russian imperial chauvinists and their stooges in the West that "evil globalists" have been conspiring the fall and dissolution of Russia, instead, throughout the 20th century the Western powers have always come to the rescue every time Russia was about to collapse and kept that Potemkin villlage the size of Eurasia afloat.

Russia came to the brink of collapse in 1917. Germany back then could have easily dealt the final fatal blow to Russia if not for its involvement in the western front, the ensuing defeat in WWI and the punitive Versailles Treaty that, among other things, foresaw the complete demolition of the German army. After Bolsheviks had seized power, Germany was in fact planning to send a military expedition to Russia to nip that emerging monster in the bud. But it was not meant to be. The Entente powers were more pre-occupied with punishing and humiliating Germany, whom, at the time, they regarded as their main enemy and historical rival than anticipating the dangers emanating from the Russian-Soviet abomination that was emerging in the East. The Bolshevik Revolution thus went on unabated.

Later, during the Russian Civil War (1918-1921) and afterwards the US in fact helped the Bolshevik government alleviate its problems, the most pressing of which was widespread famine. Among other things, US and western European powers provided Russia with substantial material relief, which gave Bolsheviks the badly needed breathing room to concentrate on re-establishing the Russian Empire by conquering the independent republics that emerged after its collapse (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia etc.) and subduing the national independence movements within Russia (e.g., Bashkirs, Tatars).

In addition to providing material relief during the Civil War and after, the United States also played a crucial role in the industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. It was basically American companies that brought about the much vaunted industrialization during the Stalin era. American engineers and businessmen built factories and developed the country's infrastructure. The country owed the emergence of almost all of its industries to American efforts.

Later, during World War II, the Soviet Union received significant aid from the United States through the Lend-Lease program. It included huge amounts of military equipment, vehicles and food. Without this support, Soviet Union would have easily been crushed by technologically more advanced and efficient Germany and finished off. The Lend-Lease program however played a decisive role in tipping the balance in favour of the Soviet Union eventually.

At the turn of the 80s and 90s, when the Soviet Union was crumbling, United States, in fact, initially tried to prevent its fall. The then president President George H. W. Bush had travelled to Ukraine and implored the government not to declare independence. The West was fearful of the unforeseeable consequences that the dissolution of that Soviet Union might bring, especially the distribution of the nuclear weapons. For this reason, United States later pressured the young Ukrainian republic to renounce its nuclear arsenal, the third in the world at the time, and transfer its nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable conventional missiles to Russia. Those very cruise missiles with which Russia currently bombards Ukrainian cities!

Moreover, on a simpler and more general note, basic human psychology was at play. The West was comfortable with perpetuating the status quo, albeit with a “westernized” and “democratized” Soviet Union, which, so they thought, would be easy to incorporate into the global order.

Also, in the 90s U.S. and European countries provided substantial financial assistance to Russia when it was, once again, on the verge of total disintegration. Like 70 years ago, the country was again suffering from the shortage of food and other basic necessities. The West, once again, stepped up to provide life support including food aid from the United States. In addition to financial and other material assistance, Western countries provided technical assistance and expertise to help Russia build its new economy. Russia was thus rescued once again. And like in the 1920-30s, the aid and assistance provided by the West would later prove to have enabled Russia to lay the groundwork for its next era of aggression.

It’s time to finish off the Sick Man of Eurasia

As we can see, throughout the 20th century major Western powers like United States and Great Britain were interested in perpetuating Russia's integrity and preventing its collapse. A unitary and strong Russian state was necessary for them to be used against Germany, whom they started to regard as their main rival from the beginning of the 20th century. This is analogous to how, in the 19th century, Great Britain was interested in the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and perpetuating its existence so that it could be used against Russia, who at the time was regarded as the main rival.

What basically happened at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries is that Russia switched roles with the Ottoman Empire within the geopolitical calculations of Western states. As Ottoman Empire inched closer and closer towards Germany's sphere of influence later resulting in full-fledged alliance, its use case was gone. Because the main rival had changed.

We have been in the midst of a similar situation for at least a decade now. In the West, for a long time, Russia has been regarded as a bulwark against China - the new emerging power which is increasingly regarded as the main rival. Moreover, a unitary and stable Russia was necessary for Western countries to ensure a single reliable focal point for their investments and receival of natural resources.

Thus, continuous attempts have been made to finally bring Russia, once and for all, into the bosom of the Western world. To this end, among other things, the West has been turning a blind eye to Russia's repeated transgressions - e.g., aggression against Moldova in 1992, two genocidal Chechen wars (in 1994-1996 and 1999), aggression against Georgia in 2008 and against Ukraine in 2014.

But it was all in vain. It must be clear by now that Russia, in its current unitary imperial form, will never be an ally of the West. It's imbued with hatred against the West and anything European. It would thus rather side with China and any other anti-western state. And, as a matter of fact, after continuous flirtations, it's irreversibly moving closer and closer to a full-gledged alliance with China.

In view of this obvious reality, breakdown of Russia will be far more advantageous for the West. In fact, it will bring huge benefits in geopolitical and even deeper meta-historical terms. The newly emergent states in the post-Russian space, through acquisition of new identities and ethos, are almost guaranteed to be friendly and grateful to the West. Under such turn of events, the Western Civilization is poised to acquire new members to its family and/or reliable allies. And those are the ones, not a unitary imperial Russia, that will serve as a bulwark against Chinese expansionism.

Thus, there needs to happen a similar switch in the thinking of Western policymakers that took place at the turn of the 20th century in regards to the Ottoman Empire. Westerners must come to terms with the fact that a unitary imperial Russia will always be an inveterate enemy of the West and that its perpetuation doesn't bring any benefits. On the contrary, its disintegration will be profoundly more beneficial compared to any potential turbulence that the process might temporarily entail.

Therefore, United States and Europe should finally let go of the idea of a unitary Russia, and instead focus their efforts on bolstering with their support the nascent national and regional independence movements that are budding within it. And they are well advised to hurry up in establishing closer ties with these forerunners of future independent post-Russian states to secure them as reliable allies against China.

Finally, dissolution of imperial Russia should not be regarded as a breakage of a functional unit, but rather a reassembly of its parts into a more natural and functional whole. The emergence of various independent states on once-Russian territory will be a huge win for the West in every way imaginable, not least since it will enlarge European civilization through (i) re-incorporation into its realm of its natural members that were, at different times in history, forcefully torn away from it by Muscovy and its successor Russia, which in its founding ethos was inimical to Europe and (ii) creation of entirely new states within Eurasia that are highly likely to be reliable allies of the West.

Time has finally come to do away with the Sick Man of Eurasia. This anti-cultural, anti-civilizational monstrosity that had emerged in the Middle Ages and has since been forcefully dragging everyone around it into its dull realm devoid of any meaningful positive identity must finally be consigned to the dustbin of history. Russia will never join Western civilization as a single entity. But this long hoped-for goal can be finally achieved by integrating the same Eurasian space in smaller independent parts.

The future independent states of the post-Russian territory.

Subscribe to Cemil Kerimoglu's Substack