AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.

Russia from its inception has always been separated both from the ethnicites of eastern Europe and the liberal states of the west, then seen as the great European other. In fact there are traces of this that can be seen all the way back with the division of Christian Europe between the Latin and Greek rites, with the final 1054 spit that alienated a nascent Kievan Rus from both the Slavs who remained Catholic and the rapidly fading Byzantine empire. On top of that the Mongol subjugation of Vladimir and other Russian principalities cut off the emerging Russian nation from the political maneuvering that dominated midmillennium Europe and instead helped to spur Muscovy's assertion of control over the western steppes. Even when Peter and Catherine Westernized the empire by modeling their courts and armies after those of Europe, the Enlightenment was still contained to discussions among the elite nobility with little no attempt to implement reform among the feudal hierarchy. Come the 19th century, any real hope of liberalism is snuffed out twice, both with the failure of the Decembrists and the reactionary policies of Alexander III, and the resulting Russian autocracy becomes the epicenter of the revolutionary wave that seized on postwar Europe. Now the USSR was anathema to everyone from the capitalists of the west to the oppenents of Soviet-style dictatorship, and everything under Moscow was the boogeyman that dominated foreign policy in the global north. Finally, the old Soviet union was split into a bunch of backwards oligarchies and would seem to stay that until Putin came and turned Russia's failed attempt at democracy into his own personal dictatoriship.

Supppose this had been different though? At what point in its history did Russia have the best chance of shedding its reputation as the despotic, only partially European east that other countries view as the lumbering threat? Furthermore, what exactly would need to be done in order to put Russia on a path way from this image?

I personally think that the best time to start this would have been the 18th and early 19th centuries, where the Russian Empire had the option of welcoming in Enlightenment ideals as well as an industrial economy, and in addition had alternative paths to take instead of concentrating its entire imperial gains on central Asia and the fringes of Siberia. Focus primarily on European power plays and take only what's needed to check Britain and Japan, and at home begin merging the traditional order with classical liberalism as was being attempted in Prussia and Orleanist France, and the end result is the possibility of a state either Decembrist style constitutional monarchy or French parliamentary republic. It wouldn't be certain to last due to ethnic tensions within the Empire as well as the backwards condition of the Russian economy during this time, but it would allow for a common link with liberal Europe and offer a chance, however fleeting, that Russia could open up politically to western models.
 
Always has been

No it hasn't. Russia has occupied a space between fully European and outside of Europe since the Mongol occupation.


It's like Brits calling American Southerners Yankees. To Europeans Russia has never been part of the West, but to non-Europeans as a Christian country that was part of the European state system since the 17th century it is.
 
I personally think that the best time to start this would have been the 18th and early 19th centuries, where the Russian Empire had the option of welcoming in Enlightenment ideals as well as an industrial economy, and in addition had alternative paths to take instead of concentrating its entire imperial gains on central Asia and the fringes of Siberia. Focus primarily on European power plays and take only what's needed to check Britain and Japan, and at home begin merging the traditional order with classical liberalism as was being attempted in Prussia and Orleanist France, and the end result is the possibility of a state either Decembrist style constitutional monarchy or French parliamentary republic. It wouldn't be certain to last due to ethnic tensions within the Empire as well as the backwards condition of the Russian economy during this time, but it would allow for a common link with liberal Europe and offer a chance, however fleeting, that Russia could open up politically to western models.
I'm not even sure this is possible for Russia to westernize or liberalize. Consider it, liberalizing would go against every characteristics of the Russian worldview in terms of politics. Democratizing (Democracy, IMO, being in reality a form of oligarchy where the people is used as a way to decide who politically rules. I mean, instead of having a group of aristocrats choosing the new King like in medieval times, or the army choosing the leader, like in certain dictatorships, you have the whole population able to vote electing the president, PM, Parlament...) would be possible for Russia, but IMO you wouldn't have seen them actually consider liberalism as a good ideology or see the West as their own civilisation (OTL, they always saw the West as a decadent civilisation, and liberalization as the best way to see your country fall apart). Even today, despite the fall of communism, there are still more Russians favoring this system than Russians who want to get closer to a liberal or Western political institution. Russia ITTL would be like a gigantic Hungary or Serbia.
 
Last edited:
It's like Brits calling American Southerners Yankees. To Europeans Russia has never been part of the West,

Notion of the “west” hardly was clearly defined until the recent times as something uniform and tended to be more Anglophonic than European (as in “continental Europe”) so the whole issue does not make too much of a practical sense, just as the “liberalism”. Neither was that notion seriously reflected in the international treaties or cultural area outside Anglophonic world: in the XIX the Brits were interested, within framework of their colonial politics, to paint a picture of the “asiatic Russia”, just as the French cultivated image of the Germans as brutal animals, as the Italians were portrayed as the clowns, Spaniards as “exotic”, etc.

but to non-Europeans as a Christian country that was part of the European state system since the 17th century it is.
 
Never, sadly. Too much Asian territory and foundational history with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Need to change everything about Russia to the point where it wouldn't be Russia anymore.
 
Western is a very vague term. It can mean anything from White to Christian to Capitalist to American to British to Roman to Greek to High-Income to Democratic to liberal depending on the context. I prefer not to use the term western because of how vague it can be.

Is Russia Western? It depends on what you mean. By Western do you mean full of indigenous European Christians? Then yes. If by Western you mean a high-income liberal democratic nation? then no. Only the speaker knows what they mean by Western. I've seen maps of Western Civilization that included every country west of Iran. I've seen maps of Western Civilization that only included the USA, UK, and former white homelands of the UK (Canada, New Zealand, Australia). Western is just one of those concepts that seem obvious until you actually try to define it. The White/Caucasian race is also in the same boat.
Never, sadly. Too much Asian territory and foundational history with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Need to change everything about Russia to the point where it wouldn't be Russia anymore.
If being Eastern Orthodox makes you non-western, I guess Greeks are foreign Easterlings as well.
 
Consider it, liberalizing would go against every characteristics of the Russian worldview in terms of politics.
Why would this be more a Russian thing than say, an English or French thing? The worldview of either of those places as far as politics a thousand years ago or even five hundred years ago is rather strikingly different than it is now as far as changes happened.
 
Last edited:
Why would this be more a Russian thing than say, an English or French thing? The worldview of either of those places as far as politics a thousand years ago or even five hundred years ago is rather strikingly different than it is now as far as changes happened.
The problem is that MODERN Russians' view of politics has been built around autocracy (since the 16th century, before Russia was very decentralized and serfdom wasn't even common among peasantry). Western Europe's and Russia's meaning of modernity diverge greatly. Whereas in Europe it means more rights for the people and restrictions of the King's power, in Russia it means more centralization, more autocracy with the Tsar's powers reinforced and more popular commitment to the State/Nation (self-sacrifice, the collective structure over the individual). If You want to make Russia a liberal country, you'll have to make a PoD around 1500, but it would have changed a lot of things about Russia's formation.
As for the English and French political worldviews, they're not the same. The English favor Liberty (Liberalism) whereas the French favor Egality (Socialism).
 
The problem is that MODERN Russians' view of politics has been built around autocracy (since the 16th century, before Russia was very decentralized and serfdom wasn't even common among peasantry). Western Europe's and Russia's meaning of modernity diverge greatly. Whereas in Europe it means more rights for the people and restrictions of the King's power, in Russia it means more centralization, more autocracy with the Tsar's powers reinforced and more popular commitment to the State/Nation (self-sacrifice, the collective structure over the individual). If You want to make Russia a liberal country, you'll have to make a PoD around 1500, but it would have changed a lot of things about Russia's formation.
As for the English and French political worldviews, they're not the same. The English favor Liberty (Liberalism) whereas the French favor Egality (Socialism).
That sounds like it would be very possible to have a liberal Russia in alternate history. Not inevitable, but neither was anything about how "the West" is (or defines itself) today.

As far as England and France I picked them as far as that they (as examples of "the West") are not the same as they were in the 11th century or the 16th century so far as worldviews changed, not to say that they are identical now.
 
As for the English and French political worldviews, they're not the same. The English favor Liberty (Liberalism) whereas the French favor Egality (Socialism).
yea, they favoured "liberty and egality" so much, in the timeframe you're using for russia, that they went on to liberate a lot of people from their possessions all around the world, making them all equal beneath their boots
 
Avoid the Russian revolution and no one would think that Russia was not part of the west.
This is my take as well.

The Tsarist state was part of the Concert of Europe. Its culture was celebrated in London and Paris, and not in that orientalizing way they would treat colonial products but as something that spoke to the universal human condition. Their monarchs intermarried with German and British royals. Even their church was not that exotic in the 19th century--a synod governed by the Tsar is not that dissimilar to the state churches of the Protestant countries, and the ritual is no less incomprehensible than the Catholic. Slavophilism was a cultural movement that emphasized the differences, but it wasn't the only ideology in the country--and even it had analogues in other European countries (like Portugal's flirtation with Lusotropicalism). They maintained a secret police--so did France. They exiled convicts unjustly--so did Britain. They committed genocide against indigenous peoples, just like any European empire. They brutalized their European subjects--just like the Hapsburgs.

They only ceased to be part of the West when they became the specter of communism.
 
yea, they favoured "liberty and egality" so much, in the timeframe you're using for russia, that they went on to liberate a lot of people from their possessions all around the world, making them all equal beneath their boots
It was obviously an oversimplification, just to say that the English elites wanted liberty for THEMSELVES (liberty of commerce, to participate in politics ... You've got the picture). As for the French, the ideals were since the medieval times to unite everyone under the King. Since 1789, the state has replaced the King. Ironically, if it wasn't for Catholicism and the influence of the Englishmen, France could have adopted a similar political institution to OTL Russia.
 
Greece does not have a large population of Asiatics. Its the combination of both that pushes Russia further east in the minds of the western powers
Following this principle, one may start questioning if, say, today’s UK is “western” anything, taking into an account ethnic identities of the PM of Britain, PM of Scotland, Mayor of London and the fact that Muhammed seems to be the most popular boys name in the UK ( ). Similar questions could be asked about many other European countries but I never heard that France is “African” country.
And, going back to pre-wwi or even pre-wwii world, the British Empire was not “Western” at all: while in the Russian Empire the “Asiatics” were a minority, in the British Empire they outnumbered the Europeans by a huge margin. So the principle is quite questionable, to put it mildly.

Now, speaking about the “powers”, the notion of the “western powers” as applicable to the time frame of this forum is plain anachronistic: there were “Great Powers” of which Russian Empire was one. The “western powers” is post-wwi or even post-wwii terminology which does not make sense in retroactive application.
 
This is my take as well.

The Tsarist state was part of the Concert of Europe. Its culture was celebrated in London and Paris, and not in that orientalizing way they would treat colonial products but as something that spoke to the universal human condition. Their monarchs intermarried with German and British royals. Even their church was not that exotic in the 19th century--a synod governed by the Tsar is not that dissimilar to the state churches of the Protestant countries, and the ritual is no less incomprehensible than the Catholic. Slavophilism was a cultural movement that emphasized the differences, but it wasn't the only ideology in the country--and even it had analogues in other European countries (like Portugal's flirtation with Lusotropicalism). They maintained a secret police--so did France. They exiled convicts unjustly--so did Britain. They committed genocide against indigenous peoples, just like any European empire. They brutalized their European subjects--just like the Hapsburgs.

They only ceased to be part of the West when they became the specter of communism.

There’s no doubt that other European saw them as poor and backward, but honestly it was in same way as other European saw the Spanish and Portuguese as poor and backward. Europeans have had a long history of looking down on their neighbors while still recognize a degree of kinship and Russia was no different.
 
From the 18th century up to 1917, Russia was integral part of the European system, one of the most important player.
True, and that's why I say this would be the ideal opportunity to let go of its medieval distance from the progress of Europe and attempt to liberalize its economy and government.
 
Top