застывать в очередной фазе модернизационного аборта

14:52 Feb 13, 2017 

Well, you're wrong again about the Soviet Union on the eve of World War II. But you're right - this discussion is no longer relevant because the asker has already chosen the answer. I'm sure you and I have better things to do than continuing this useless discussion.

17:11 Feb 12, 2017 

RE:"It is often said that Russia was militarily weak, technologically backward....''
Right, that's exactly what they said on the eve of the World War II about the Soviet Union! 'Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down'. (c) Adolf Hitler. I don't need to tell you what happened afterwards, do I? ;-)
Now, I dismiss your arguments (or rather your [relentless] efforts to make a case) as ridiculous and will continue to do so for one simple reason: the arguments you are making are totally irrelevant and you won't convince me otherwise. Take these latest ones for instance: what does the abolition of serfdom (or the date of the abolition, for that matter) have to do with the subject at hand? The abolition and the 'abortive modernization' are connected how? Or what does the alleged weakness and backwardness of the Russian army/navy in the 19th century have to do with 'abortive modernization', the term found in an article written in the 21st century? See my point? I hope you do, 'cause I've had just enough of this discussion. And please don't insult my intelligence ever again by providing links on Russian history, particularly from the Wikipedia. Bye for now!)

15:05 Feb 12, 2017 

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крепостное_право_в_России

Please, note this paragraph: "19 февраля 1861 года Манифестом императора Александра II крепостное право было окончательно отменено. Основными причинами реформы был кризис крепостнической системы и крестьянские волнения, усилившиеся во время Крымской войны."

14:47 Feb 12, 2017 

OK. If you don't believe me and dismiss my arguments as "ridiculous", then check out this Wikipedia article about the Crimean war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

Please, pay particular attention to these paragraph: "It is often said that Russia was militarily weak, technologically backward, and administratively incompetent. Despite its grand ambitions toward the south, it had not built its railroad network in that direction, and communications were poor. The bureaucracy was riddled with graft, corruption and inefficiency and was unprepared for war. Its navy was weak and technologically backward; its army, although very large, was good only for parades, suffered from colonels who pocketed their men's pay, poor morale, and was out of touch with the latest technology developed by Britain and France. By the war's end, everyone realized the profound weaknesses of the Russian military, and the Russian leadership was determined to reform it...

"The Crimean War was a contributing factor in the Russian abolition of serfdom in 1861: Tsar Alexander II ... saw the military defeat of the Russian serf-army by free troops from Britain and France as proof of the need for emancipation"

10:56 Feb 12, 2017 

this is getting too scientific for me :-) Let's just agree to disagree. Cheers!

10:40 Feb 12, 2017 

History teaches us that rulers try to modernize their countries only after suffering defeats from advanced rivals. Take for example, the Roman Empire - they also built a powerful navy after suffering a series of defeats from Phoenicians.

10:34 Feb 12, 2017 

Thirdly, arguing that Tsar Alexander decided to free 'serfs' because Russia was defeated in the Crimean War, which, as you claim, was a result of Russia not being able to 'compete' with France and Great Britain (you failed to mention Turkey, A.K.A the Ottoman Empire, by the way) is just so ludicrous. Any country, however powerful it may be, will lose a war if it has a bunch of other powerful countries allied against it, not to mention a raft of many other factors that may or may not have contributed to the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War. And how can you possibly know what was behind Alexander's decision to free 'serfs'? Maybe all he ever wanted was to go down in history as a 'liberator'. And finally, whatever Alexander did (an attempt at modernization, whatever), you can't possibly put him on par with Peter the Great, plain and simple. PS: Don't be jealous: next time the Asker might pick your answer ;-)

10:32 Feb 12, 2017 

I didn't mean to teach you a lesson. I don't give free lessons to anyone these days :) I just tried to provide a historical context. Peter the Great's modernization efforts were most successful, but they failed to free serfs and introduce many other good things that Europe already enjoyed. For example, serfdom had long been abolished in most European countries by the time - even in that same Sweden that he defeated.

10:25 Feb 12, 2017 

most humbly for a 'history lesson', FreeEditor :-) Not that I really needed one, but thanks anyway. Other than that, your arguments are pretty far-fetched and somewhat ridiculous even. Firstly, why drag all these Tsars and irrelevant historical facts into discussion? Secondly, you can't refer to Peter the Great's UNIQUE and extraordinary accomplishments (who basically transformed Russia, in the words of A. S. Pushkin,'на высоте уздой железной Россию поднял на дыбы') as just an ''attempt at modernization'', whereby implying (given the way you phrased your answer) that it was just one (the very first one, obviously) in the series of FAILED attempts. What Peter did wasn't an ''attempt at modernization'' (incidentally, he wasn't 'catching up', 'cause the term was only coined in the 1950s, i.e. more than 200 years after he died), it was an all out transformation, on completion of which Russia emerged as a major superpower. tbc

07:12 Feb 12, 2017 

Russia has made several attempts at modernization for the purpose of catching up with Europe (and then the USA) - the first started during the reign of Peter the Great. Tsar Alexander II freed serfs and introduced some liberal reforms, which were then rolled back by his successor. The list of such attempts or efforts, if you like, is pretty long I guess. Such attempts do involve modernization - both technical (building a new navy, purchasing new equipment and machinery) and political (liberal reforms etc.) Why did Alexander II free the serfs? Because Russia's defeat in the Crimean War showed that Russia couldn't possibly compete with England and France back then. If his political reforms had been continued, the giant Russia wouldn't have suffered a humiliating defeat from the tiny Japan in 1905. // P.S. But congratulations anyway! The asker has chosen your option.

03:41 Feb 12, 2017 

To All,
Here translators' task is to translate what is given in the context, regardless of what the author is writing or his opinion is. But we are discussing the author's opinion and the separate word itself, not the meaning.

07:47 Feb 11, 2017 

I hope that my morning after ramblings won't impede comprehension :-) Cheers!

07:44 Feb 11, 2017 

You could probably describe 'trying to catch up with America' as an attempt to do exactly that - catch up and outdo, but catching up and outdoing doesn't necessarily involve modernization. Well, maybe it does in Western societies, but I don't think it's always the case with Russia. (After all, умом Россию не понять, aршином общим не измерить.. right? ;-) More importantly, the Russian text doesn't say anything about any attempts, neither made nor failed ones. What it says (unless I completely misread it, which is highly unlikely :) is that with certain 'evil' organizations becoming increasingly powerful, the society tends to isolate itself from the outside world and, quite naturally, another phase/stage/cycle (or whatever) of modernization the society is currently in, is aborted as a result of that very isolation. It's not like the society is repeatedly attempting and failing at modernization because it's not trying hard enough. At the end of the day, the 'abortion' is caused by both external and internal factors: the increased pressure from certain repressive institutions on one hand and self-imposed isolation on the other.