Why hasn’t Europe ever trusted Russia?

[zanzibar89]

I mean even before communism as well. Like if you took any European historical figure (including Hitler) and Russia and put them in a room to discuss politics, no matter how much they argue with each other or team up with Russia when Germans get too strong, the one thing they would still have in common is they’re worried about Russia

All of Europe has tried conquering each other at some point so how come when the conquering days were over, Europe still didn’t trust Russia? I mean Russians aren’t that “different” to Europeans (white/Christians)

was it because that by the time Europe became all buddies with each other including the new kid on the block the U.S and made Germany sit in the corner, we were suddenly faced with communism led by Russia? What about when communism fell why didn’t we invite Russia to hangout with us?

This a serious thread by the way it’s always perplexed me. Your insight is appreciated

-Moved to the Academy, as the topic of the thread is not about a current, political event. ~Abdülmecid I

[sumskilz]

I mean Russians aren’t that “different” to Europeans (white/Christians)

Europe:



Note the position of Russia. One might almost assume that they are Europeans. In fact, I have never before heard it suggested otherwise.

[Daruwind]

The view was probably different during ages but at least for us now here, it is hard to be non-biased view. I´m from Czech Republic.

My grand grand dad was in Czech Legion. He was telling all stories how Russians treated them at beginning as enemies, how they "betray" them and had to fight through Siberia to get home. It is kinda sad, when you cannot go home after war...

My grand dad and father lived in communism for 40 years. There is reason why russians call everything "nazi" and why they are so proud of fight in Great patriotic war. Not second world war. And when they finally helped to make us free, they meddled to keep us slaves behind iron curtain for those 40 years. They plundered country, forbid us to take aid from USA after war and screwed mentality of people. It is still there a little. This eastern european mentality of distrust, self centering and so.

In 1968 they invaded us because people were trying communism with human face....were trying to divert little more.

And even after almost 30 years after Velvet revolution, they are still people wishing for old times and we have big feeling that russia is trying to meddle here. Get favourable conditions. And when you meet some tourist here, it pretty much summed one quote from last year from one guy. "You were part of Russia, we will come again in tanks to Warsava, Prague even Berlin. Russia once, Russia forever".

I have a few friends even among Russian guys. Don´t get me wrong. My flatmate is from Russia and she is glad she get away. Stories she tells are hillarious. She said the main issue is, russians are fearing they are not great. Other nations have done crazy , had empires, dictators but found peace with their own history. What about russia? Why still dreaming about empire, car, Stalin....There is always the feeling the russian help is not for free. Always debt to pay..

[sumskilz]

My grand grand dad was in Czech Legion. He was telling all stories how Russians treated them at beginning as enemies, how they "betray" them and had to fight through Siberia to get home.

Well that's interesting... Your great grandfather and mine might have met. Mine was in the American expeditionary force involved in evacuating the Czech Legion via Vladivostok.

[z3n]

An interesting question, I have often wondered the same and came to the conclusion that allied countries need a rival and a reason to keep their budgets and bases as they are.

China is not yet the perceived threat but perhaps will be eventually, as they well should. Russia I suspect knows its the most powerful state in europe and a nuclear juggernaut that can't be conventionally challenged for fear of retaliation. At the same time its fear intimidates non nuclear armed states. Non nuclear know conventionally they will have trouble and if it goes nuclear they are doomed.


Short answer, constant fear and need of a rival. After all competition is a basic element of a human person. We want to do better.

Personally I have never seen the need to hate Russia. They are no more nefarious than the next powerful state.

[95thrifleman]

Russia has been a massive power block for centuries, it goes back to the three "greats" Peter, Alexander and Catherine. Russia controlled many of the trade routes to the east, was able to influence Europe via mercantile and poitical power and had "buffer" states to prevent direct military conflicts and had a habit of winning in wars.

Russia defeated the sweedes (at the time a major power) and Napoleon in their time and played the "great game" against British economic interests for centuries. In fact at the beginning of the Napoleonic wars, Britain considered Russia a bigger threat than France.

It has nothing to do with communism, Russia has always been the biggest economic and military power competing with Europe.

[Mithradates]

All of Europe has tried conquering each other at some point so how come when the conquering days were over, Europe still didn’t trust Russia?

Because Russia's conquering days are not gone yet: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk.

What about when communism fell why didn’t we invite Russia to hangout with us?

The EU did try that, it was Russia who made this not possible by always meddling in other countries business to prove that they are still a power.

[Daruwind]

Well that's interesting... Your great grandfather and mine might have met. Mine was in the American expeditionary force involved in evacuating the Czech Legion via Vladivostok.

That´s true. My great grandfather was Jan Jindra, he was not speaking english and was quite young boy at the time, just about 20 years old. But I have read many pages about kind people around whole world. The journey was quite a track for them all. :-)

Russia has been a massive power block for centuries, it goes back to the three "greats" Peter, Alexander and Catherine....It has nothing to do with communism, Russia has always been the biggest economic and military power competing with Europe.

I don´t want to hijack the thread but for example for us Czechs, Germans were "mortal enemies", biggest player around for pretty much our whole history. From early days of saint/duke Wenceslav (he was paying tribut to east franks),Holy Roman Empire, Habsburg empire till WW1 heck even the Munich agreement before WW2 (forgetting battle of white Mountain 1620, which is also largely seen as battle/defeat vs germans..). But today nobody is really mad about Germany, we trade, we live side by side, we play footbal hockey and drink beer. But this feeling of mutual friendship is not there in relationship with Russia. It is nothing against particular people or common people...just the generalization (which is bad). But it is hard to overcome...

Because Russia's conquering days are not gone yet: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk.

The EU did try that, it was Russia who made this not possible by always meddling in other countries business to prove that they are still a power.

Ye, exactly. For example russia is heavily trying to secure contract for our nuclear power plant and when there were talks about possible radar station in czech for USA/NATo missile defense network, russia did meddle and especially publicly saying that they are aiming nuclear warheads on us. You cannot kill anybody with radar or even anti missiles, but threating with missiles is okay. That´s sadly russian diplomacy. :/

[Jom]

International relations in Europe have always been predicated on the maintenance of the balance of power. I wouldn't say that historically Russia has been any more trusted or mistrusted than any of Europe's great powers throughout the 17th-19th centuries. Only with the advent of communism, the anathema to the capitalist system in place in most of Europe did Russia start being viewed with suspicion and often open hostility.

[Daruwind]

Plus for more then the last 50 years EU/NATO is keeping quite peace in most of Europe. Like come on, Europe was battleground for two millenias so those almost 70 years after WW2. OF course we have a lot smaller trouble makers..locals mostly and some rivalry like Greece/Turkey but only bigger trouble keeper is Russia. So it is easy to point fingers while all others are behaving nicely...

EDIT: and just for clarification. I don´t hate russians or wish them any ill. I just pity people under hteir goverment/oligarchs. Like we here had very simplified version and it took 20-25 years to get again free and get used to all the free movement, thinking and such stuff.

[Cookiegod]

The premise of the original post is already wrong. Western-to-mid Europe did not always distrust Russia, even though xenophobe movements on all sides of the borders try to make it look that way, even going as far back as Alexander Nevskyi and the crusades.

If we start with the early modern period, when Russia reappeared as a major state, France was in bitter rivalry with the English and the Holy Roman empire. The French were thus traditional allies of the Ottoman Empire, which was fighting the HRE, which did not have conflicting interests with the Russians. Which is why the relations between those countries were quite good. To the point that foreigners in still somewhat isolated Muscovy were collectively called "Germans" for a while.
But the HRE didn't fight the Poles much, which the Russians were fighting a very bitter and existential struggle against (Poland-Lithuania were the ones that came closest to annihilating it for good, and were rather genocidal in their warfare - in some ways worse than the tartars/mongols). So there was no alliance there. The English on the other hand became very dependent on Russia, the Muscovy Trading Company, chartered in the mid-16th century, was the first chartered joint stock company, and thereby an important step towards the capitalist future to come. The relationship wasn't always easy, and there were negative things written about each other and the Russians being outraged at the execution of king Charles I., but that alliance held in general until the 18th century, when two developments coincided and caused a complete reversal:
1) England now eclipsed its rivals by a large margin, especially after great gains against the French in the 7-years war, and now had significant interests in the Mediterranean themselves.
2) The Russo–Turkish War of 1787–1792 established Russia as a far superior power to the Ottomans, which were no longer seen as a major threat. It is also the war that saw Russia gain Crimea, which remains a crucial focal point for all geopolitical strategies.

Russia having risen so far and the other traditional great powers having declined significantly, meant that England now saw Russia as the main threat and completely reversed the trend.
They always trusted Russia enough to see them as valuable allies whenever needed (e.g. Napoleon), but when they weren't needed as such, they were seen as the great game to be hunted down.
Halford Mackinder's heartland theory didn't help either.
Megalomania, avarice, the difference in cultures and chauvinism all fueled the Russophobia which remains a common tool for the hawks til this day.
It is no wonder that Rudyard Kipling, the author of the "white man's burden", hated to see Russia as part of the enlightened west:

Let it be clearly understood that the Russian is a delightful person till he tucks his shirt in. As an Oriental he is charming. It is only when he insists upon being treated as the most easterly of Western peoples, instead of the most westerly of Easterns, that he becomes a racial anomaly extremely difficult to handle. The host never knows which side of his nature is going to turn up next.

The French meanwhile continued their traditional century-old alliance with the Ottomans, which they had started because of the Holy Roman Empire, and were thus also pitted against the Russians, and after the revolutions, had quite bad relations to Russia because of those as well. France only had really good relations with Russia after they'd been decisively defeated by the Germans in 1871, and only until 1917. The French invested a lot in Russia between those dates.

Speaking of Germany: Prussia would've seen an early end to its aspirations if it hadn't been for Russian aversions to the Habsburg war aims in the 7 years war. It wasn't, contrary to popular belief, the death of the empress that saved Frederick the Great, since the empress herself also had been quite averse of where the war was going.

The Habsburgs meanwhile were always opportunists. Russia saved them from almost extinction in 1848, Austria immediately went to backstab them in the Crimean war a mere 5 years later, "surprising the world with its ungratefulness", to quote a contemporary ("eilte die Welt mit seiner Undankbarkeit zu verblüffen").

The Crimean war was also another important milestone in European history, as it ended the holy alliance, which specifically adressed the problems and mistakes of nationalism that'd lead all the way to world war I.

To finish the list with a very positive example: The Russo-Danish relations remained very solid throughout the existence of the tsardom, mostly because of their common rivalry against the Swedes.

Sure: The fact that most of the Western countries failed to get a clear, realistic picture of Russia's capacities and capabilities didn't help. And to a certain degree, that hasn't changed til today either. To quote a very recent RAND study on how to destabilise and mess with Russia with nonviolent means:

The maxim that “Russia is never so strong nor so weak as it appears” remains as true in the current century as it was in the 19th and 20th.

But nothing has changed over the years in the regard that the relationships between Russia and the West were far more nuanced than they're purported to have been.

A couple of months ago, I saw an article from a local newspaper from my region, detailing how Russia donated a very significant amount of money to deal with a famine the region struggled with.

The first step to change is usually up to oneself. Educate yourselves, have clear moral principles, don't be chauvinist.
Everyone knows racism/antisemitism/xenophobia isn't ok. Russophobia isn't either. Don't fall for the trope that Russia is basically a huge Zerg hive. It is not.

[Abdülmecid I]

Firstly, as sumskilz showed, Russia has always been part of Europe, since the heart of the country is located in the west of the Ural mountains, which is universally recognized as the eastern border of the European continent. Russia not being considered as part of Europe is a theme that appears regularly on media and therefore public perception, according to the current relations between Moscow and the major European powers. The latest instance has been 2014, when tensions flared up, as the European Union and the United States competed against the Russian Federation about to whose sphere of influence Ukraine would belong to. Consequently, the trust shown to Russia always reflects the diplomatic situation between the two centers of power, although racist stereotypes about oriental tyrannies and barbaric hordes always persisted, even if when the geopoltical antagonism was not particularly tense. Russia has been at odds with Europe ever since the October Revolution, with a small interruption in the mid '40s, but what matters the most is the present.

The Czech example, as mentioned by Daruwing, is indicative of that tendency, because most Czechs remain worried about Kremlin than Berlin, despite the fact that the Czechs have historically been "oppressed" more than their German neighbors than the remarkably more distant Russians, even if we take the Spring of Prague into consideration. In conclusion, the suspicion towards the Russians will last, as long as the financial interests between the European Union (essentially France and Germany) and Russia collide, although in some exceptional cases (like those of Finland, Ukraine or Poland), the roots of the animosity are a bit more deep. Whether Russia will be replaced by China as the next boogeyman or not depends on the future relationship between Brussels and Beijing. Personally, I find more probable, as China's economic, industrial and commercial power increases, the scenario of a bilaterally fruitful and prosperous coexistence, similar to the present one with the United States, than a repetition of the Cold War. In contrast to Russia, the financial interests of Europe and China do not necessarily collide.

[Cookiegod]

Yeah, about the Czechs... I forgot to mention: Why do you think so many countries across Eastern Europe have the Russian colour stripes? Because of Panslavism. Saying that Russia wasn't trusted by Europe is a bit of an overstatement.

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't think you can really say that same opinion on a specific power prevailed across Europe. For example, in 1800s, Russians were liberators against the French tyranny. Who knows, maybe once European Union goes full totalitarian, Russians will liberate Europe yet again.

[zanzibar89]

Btw I understand that part of Russia is geographically within Europe, but that was part of the point of my OP as it seems to me it was never treated like it was

The premise of the original post is already wrong. Western-to-mid Europe did not always distrust Russia, even though xenophobe movements on all sides of the borders try to make it look that way, even going as far back as Alexander Nevskyi and the crusades.

If we start with the early modern period, when Russia reappeared as a major state, France was in bitter rivalry with the English and the Holy Roman empire. The French were thus traditional allies of the Ottoman Empire, which was fighting the HRE, which did not have conflicting interests with the Russians. Which is why the relations between those countries were quite good. To the point that foreigners in still somewhat isolated Muscovy were collectively called "Germans" for a while.
But the HRE didn't fight the Poles much, which the Russians were fighting a very bitter and existential struggle against (Poland-Lithuania were the ones that came closest to annihilating it for good, and were rather genocidal in their warfare - in some ways worse than the tartars/mongols). So there was no alliance there. The English on the other hand became very dependent on Russia, the Muscovy Trading Company, chartered in the mid-16th century, was the first chartered joint stock company, and thereby an important step towards the capitalist future to come. The relationship wasn't always easy, and there were negative things written about each other and the Russians being outraged at the execution of king Charles I., but that alliance held in general until the 18th century, when two developments coincided and caused a complete reversal:
1) England now eclipsed its rivals by a large margin, especially after great gains against the French in the 7-years war, and now had significant interests in the Mediterranean themselves.
2) The Russo–Turkish War of 1787–1792 established Russia as a far superior power to the Ottomans, which were no longer seen as a major threat. It is also the war that saw Russia gain Crimea, which remains a crucial focal point for all geopolitical strategies.

Russia having risen so far and the other traditional great powers having declined significantly, meant that England now saw Russia as the main threat and completely reversed the trend.
They always trusted Russia enough to see them as valuable allies whenever needed (e.g. Napoleon), but when they weren't needed as such, they were seen as the great game to be hunted down.
Halford Mackinder's heartland theory didn't help either.
Megalomania, avarice, the difference in cultures and chauvinism all fueled the Russophobia which remains a common tool for the hawks til this day.
It is no wonder that Rudyard Kipling, the author of the "white man's burden", hated to see Russia as part of the enlightened west:


The French meanwhile continued their traditional century-old alliance with the Ottomans, which they had started because of the Holy Roman Empire, and were thus also pitted against the Russians, and after the revolutions, had quite bad relations to Russia because of those as well. France only had really good relations with Russia after they'd been decisively defeated by the Germans in 1871, and only until 1917. The French invested a lot in Russia between those dates.

Speaking of Germany: Prussia would've seen an early end to its aspirations if it hadn't been for Russian aversions to the Habsburg war aims in the 7 years war. It wasn't, contrary to popular belief, the death of the empress that saved Frederick the Great, since the empress herself also had been quite averse of where the war was going.

The Habsburgs meanwhile were always opportunists. Russia saved them from almost extinction in 1848, Austria immediately went to backstab them in the Crimean war a mere 5 years later, "surprising the world with its ungratefulness", to quote a contemporary ("eilte die Welt mit seiner Undankbarkeit zu verblüffen").

The Crimean war was also another important milestone in European history, as it ended the holy alliance, which specifically adressed the problems and mistakes of nationalism that'd lead all the way to world war I.

To finish the list with a very positive example: The Russo-Danish relations remained very solid throughout the existence of the tsardom, mostly because of their common rivalry against the Swedes.

Sure: The fact that most of the Western countries failed to get a clear, realistic picture of Russia's capacities and capabilities didn't help. And to a certain degree, that hasn't changed til today either. To quote a very recent RAND study on how to destabilise and mess with Russia with nonviolent means:


But nothing has changed over the years in the regard that the relationships between Russia and the West were far more nuanced than they're purported to have been.

A couple of months ago, I saw an article from a local newspaper from my region, detailing how Russia donated a very significant amount of money to deal with a famine the region struggled with.

The first step to change is usually up to oneself. Educate yourselves, have clear moral principles, don't be chauvinist.
Everyone knows racism/antisemitism/xenophobia isn't ok. Russophobia isn't either. Don't fall for the trope that Russia is basically a huge Zerg hive. It is not.

its not an anti Russian rant

Also apologies for the vagueness of my questions and generalisation and simplifying of the complexities of politics spanning centuries. As you can see IÂ’m not exactly a historian. It is just something IÂ’ve noticed when I read about history, so IÂ’m probably wrong but was curious if anyone else felt the same

In regards to the rest of your post, like I said in the OP even though European countries have been helped by Russia, it always seems like an alliance out of necessity to deal whatever current problems they were facing against other european countries/empires/kingdoms etc. When I read about European history before communism I always get the sense that Russia, even though it’s been allied and been to war with other European countries/ (just like europeans have with each other), there’s always this vibe I get that Russia is always seen as a ‘tolerated’ foreign empire. During the communism days we can easily put it on the whole communism thing. But before that, would you say I’m correct?

[zanzibar89]

Because Russia's conquering days are not gone yet: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk.



The EU did try that, it was Russia who made this not possible by always meddling in other countries business to prove that they are still a power.

Thats what thought about the current relationship with Russia as well. I was just wondering if it was more to it than a bunch of Russian men being petty and bitter and developing some sort of small man syndrome

this actually brings me to a follow up question, is the distrust that Russia has now against E.U/U.S just a Cold War left over symptom or does it go further back before communism?

[Muizer]

I think it pretty much is down to 'Communism', because history since the revolution has shaped the Russian outlook to be one of a nation beleaguered from all sides that survived at the cost of tremendous sacrifices. In the West we may look upon Russia as bullies, but I am quite sure they don't see it that way. They see the expansion of the EU and Nato as aggressive moves to further isolate and marginalize Russia.

[conon394]

I would agree and boil it down to pre and post Communism on the Lenin/Stalin state basis. Before just European Great Power (Post Peter) Its not like any of them really trusted each other. Post1945 you got to blame Stalin. He made it clear he would enforce his type of rule where ever he could (think Korea) thus the a binary cold war mentality set in. The US did offer the Marshall plan to the states in the defacto soviet sphere and they where made to decline, and the Polish government was eliminated... In the end the adversarial relationship of now is I think the legacy of Stalin foremost. Also I suppose of the support for the czar based of the dramatic collapse of the USSR (run by well mostly Russians) and the sense of humiliation and loss of stature. Putin is the inevitable reaction and with higher oil prices able to cement his vision and relative improvement in prosperity. His vision is confrontational to get back what was lost or at least punish the West for its apparent arrogance.

@zanzibar89

Its definitely a legacy of The Cold war and how it ended and likely how triumphalist the west was. Consider that for example that during the American Civil war Russia was a key factor in keeping the French from being able to push the UK into intervening in the war on essentially the side the CSA. Why Because Russia viewed the Union has a key asset to help balance the UK in another war and had little love in its heart for the co sponsors of the Crimean war.

[Daruwind]

Yeah, about the Czechs... I forgot to mention: Why do you think so many countries across Eastern Europe have the Russian colour stripes? Because of Panslavism. Saying that Russia wasn't trusted by Europe is a bit of an overstatement.

Exactly. In 19-early 20 century there were this romanticized idea about distant Russia. The glorious empire of Russia. Finally great state for us slavs especially as we were used to be under goverment of others like Habsburgs. And there were many authors calling for actively joining with Russia creating some kind pan-slovan state. Russians were saviors from Napoleon as well as offering bright future for workers during red revolution. And of course they were saviors from Hitler. But in all of this, this was the romanticized idea usually without direct experience. After WW1 Legionnaries came home with knowledge, what was the Reds vs Whites civil War, how we slovans behave between ourselves. After WW2 many saw how Red army behave but it was only after WW2 that all got the bad experience with what does it actually mean to be under Russian rule. After all, we czechs got from WW2 in quite "good shape". Just 350,000 dead and we were marked for future movement to the east or to be removed but that luckily didn´t happen. So it was from Munich for us just 7 years. Compare it with 40 years of labour under Soviets.. But that is past now. Problem is, Russia was used to compete with other power block - USA/EU. After 1990 we got opportunity to join the EU and basically was offered vision of united EU without war. But due to internal problems after collapse of Soviet union, what was left to Russia? There is no future vision, just dreams of past even fall of Soviet union is failure of long term vision. They cannot join EU wihtout having main word..It is really about not being able to accept own failures? Once more I will rely upon discussion with my russian flat mate. "In russia,there is the feeling of nothing being worth pursuing. Everyone with some money try to get away. To actually live. In russia, there is no future only bittersweet feeling of failure. And people are not used to cope with failures, they were taught to point fingers. Sentence those "guilty" and then forget in glass of vodka.."

I´m not expert on russia but I see it as big failure of russia. Inability to offer bright future. States were in union only due to threat of strenght. And now? EU is not perfect but it is somewhat working, no surprise that even closest states to Russia itself like Ukraine, baltic states are looking that way. So Russia turned to only thing they got left, meddling, KGB methods ...shortly reppresion. Seeding discord, problems. That´s the problem with russia as I wrote before. You cannot deal with them fairly as they would try to gain influence from any trade, dealing, negotiation. And because Putin has not many card left, he has to play nationalistic one, war and constant danger from all around.

EDIT: Basically I´m not surprised at all. After 100 years of self sacrifice and loses in the name of glorious future, nothing came of it. Soviet union collapse and this is still being echoed till present day. I don´t mean it in any bad way but can you imagine those multiple generation living under Cheka/NKVD/KGB. And we can just feel it. Answer to the OP question is lying in the heart of russia itself...

[Coughdrop addict]

I don't know enough about pre-Soviet Russian-European relations to offer much on that subject, but I can say that most of the antagonistic relationship between Russia and the west from the Soviet era onward boils down to envy, the legacy of totalitarianism, and the human tendency to blame someone else for one's own problems.

Even during the cold war enough of western culture and media got through the iron curtain that most Russians knew that they had it bad compared to most of the west. They knew that in the US and western Europe owning a car or having enough food so you didn't go to bed hungry wasn't just for the rich. They also knew that in the US and western Europe you could have your own opinions, even criticize the government, and not be sent to a gulag. Since any attempt to change this state of affairs was met with brutal violence from the Soviet elite, many Russians instead developed a feeling of envy towards the west. One which the Soviet elite were more than happy to exploit to keep themselves in power.

The inherent problems of a totalitarian government made things even worse. Since no one could be allowed to criticize the government even within their own heads, for generations Russians were told to blame the west for every problem personal or national. Over time it became a habit, then a reflex that is still part of the Russian psyche to this day. Individual Russians may have a different view, but as a whole Russia still lays the blame for it's problems on the west. Of course blaming someone else for your problems does nothing to actually fix them. So Russia's many problems-like crippling levels of corruption, a stagnate third-world economy, and a strongman "president" who is so insecure he has to resort to ballot-stuffing in an election in which he controls the opposition-become more and more ingrained with each passing year.

All of this leads Russia to have a national inferiority complex. It throws it's weight around whenever it has the opportunity, and the rest of Europe bears the brunt of this chest-thumping. Russia has become that guy in a bar who picks a fight to make himself feel like a big man. It wants to be seen as relevant and important, but the only way it can do so is by threats and force.