Despite
the authorities’ preoccupation with maintaining a privileged
status for Russians, the nationalities policy had no beneficial
effect on the economic well-being of the ethnic Russian
population. The standards of life in the Russian heartlands were
often lower than on the ethnic periphery. In addition, the
incorporation of territories that lagged behind in
socio-economic development or were culturally different
conflicted with the country’s historic goal of catching up with
the leading nations of the West. |
Only by
straining all its economic, demographic and military resources could
it sustain the status of a great power capable of playing an
influential role in the international arena and controlling the
numerous nationalities that populated its huge territory. In a
paradoxical way, the territorial expansion provided Russia with an
impressive amount of men and materials to claim the status of a
great power on the world stage. Yet the growth of the empire was
achieved at a crippling social cost, caused mounting ethnic problems
and, in the final analysis, was a factor which did more to
constrain, rather than advance, the economic and socio-political
development of Russia.
The great
state, which accommodated the traditions and ways of life of so many
different peoples, found it more and more difficult to cope with the
pressures of ethnic assimilation and nationalism and was
increasingly vulnerable to the danger of being torn apart by the
incompatibility of the diverse cultures which it had brought
together into one empire over the course of many centuries. With the
collapse of the autocracy in February 1917, followed by the
Bolshevik takeover in October, the seemingly monolithic structure of
the Russian empire rapidly unraveled.
Fanned by
the Bolshevik slogan of the right of nations to self-determination
up to the point of secession, aided by the chaos of war and
revolution, the national-liberation movements on the fringes of the
decomposing state spontaneously and instantly destroyed the tsarist
colossus from within, splitting it into a multitude of large and
small entities (the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, the
Ukraine, Belorussia, Finland, the Baltic states, the newly created
republics in Transcaucasia, the North Caucasus, the Volga region,
Kazakhstan and Central Asia). Some lands, like Poland and Finland,
gained full independence and became sovereign states. Most, however,
would succumb to the recentralizing drive of the new communist
authorities in Moscow which would re-incorporate them into the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in the name of ‘the proletarian
internationalist interests’. They would finally escape from the
tight grip of communist authoritarianism seven decades later, when
in 1991 the tsarist empire’s successor would itself collapse.