If Putin Was Around in The 1800s, Would the USA be Russian Today?
Would Russia have colonised the USA? Russia wanted to.
Russia has always been a country looking for dominance and expansion, it seems, but the same was true of the British Empire in the 19th Century.
Britain, however embraced democracy over time, although Britain started out with a small percentage of the population first 5% and then 7% over the age of twenty being eligible to vote. Only later in 1928 were all citizens allowed to vote.
Once again Rowan Atkinson nails it in his TV series Black Adder. I quote from this below to illustrate my point.
‘At Mrs. Miggins’ home
Edmund Black Adder: Well, Mrs. Miggins, at last we can return to sanity. The hustings are over, the bunting is down, the mad hysteria is at an end. After the chaos of a general election, we can return to normal.
MRs. Miggins: Oh, has there been a general election, then, Mr. Blackadder?
Edmund Black Adder: Indeed, there has, Mrs. Miggins.
Mrs Miggins: Oh, well, I never heard about it.
Edmund Blackadder: Well of course you didn’t — you’re not eligible to vote.
Mrs Miggins: Well, why not?
Edmund Blackadder: Because virtually no one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick)
chimpanzees (Baldrick looks behind himself, trying to see the animal),
lunatics, Lords…
Baldrick: That’s not true — Lord Nelson’s got a vote!
Edmund Blackadder: He’s got a *boat*, Baldrick. Marvellous thing, democracy. Look at Manchester; population 60,000, electoral role, 3.
Mrs Miggins: Well, I may have the brain the size of a saltana(sp?)…
Edmund Blackadder: Correct…
Mrs Miggins: …but it hardly seems fair to me.
Edmund Blackadder: Of course it’s not fair — and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we’ll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.’
Britain got there, took them time, but they did, and Russia, well, not so much.
We now have a man in power in Russia who has expansionist ideals for Russia, and we have a Western European alliance worried about the expansionist ideals of Russia, but who also have expansionist ideals of their own.
Back in the late 1790s Russia had set its sights on the North American continent.
Russia had formed a shipping company (The Russian American Company) with similar aims as the Dutch East India Company, but in a Russian context.
Russia had to expand Eastwards and Alaska was the target in the 1790s. However navigating the treacherous Bering Strait became a problem, shipping supplies from Russia to the new colony, was not only difficult but also very costly.
Later the Russians tried a different strategy, to supply the Alaskan colony from California. California at the time had two other nations namely Spain and Mexico vying for it. Neither Spain nor Mexico forcefully claimed California, so Russia set up three ranches at Fort Ross about 50 miles (80kms) north of San Francisco.
But the Russians could not protect Fort Ross from American and Mexican settlement. They therefore abandoned the idea of expansion in California.
The Americans purchased the Fort Ross ranches and all property of the Russian American Company.
Hawaii
Russia also tried to colonise Hawaii. They negotiated a deal with the leader of Hawaii at the time and in exchange for medical knowledge, and with the blessings of one of the Kings of Hawaii, the Russians set up a base in Honolulu.
The Russians continued to negotiate with one of two Hawaiin Kings and sided with him against his opponent. Russia supplied this king men and weapons to fight the other king, however this relationship did not last and the Hawaiin King supporting the Russians kicked them out of his kingdom, because the Russians had not confronted the men of his rival in combat. This was a sign to him that the Russians were not serious about Hawaii.
That ended the ambitions of Russia in Hawaii.
Alaska
Alaska remained the only budding colony of the Russians.
The Russian authorities back in Russia were finding the’ Russian Alaskan’ project too expensive to maintain, as the profits from fur trade were not good enough. (They did not know about Oil or gold there).
Had the Russians found those commodities, the colony would have sparked major interest back in Russia. And I think Russia would have been a lot more serious about Alaska. The Russians also tried to convert the indigenous people of Alaska to Orthodox Christianity but they were unsuccessful.
Threats from the USA and Britain convinced Russia that it would not be worth the cost of a war, and Russia would overextend themselves.
Russia sold their stake in Alaska to the United States, that happened in 1867. Russia sold Alaska for $7.2million.
USA resourcefulness came to the fore once again.
The USA found gold and oil, in Alaska and Russia lost out on their expansion.
The cost and logistics were just not something Russia saw as an opportunity, and that decision changed history.
Would Russia have had the firepower and the military might to have taken Alaska against the USA and possibly Britain? I don’t think they would have stood a chance. American industry and ingenuity was speeding up, and if there was one thing American pioneers were good at, was survival and taming a tough continent. These pioneers were used to adversity and the challenges of nature, they would not be easy to overcome, as Britain found out.
Russia wanted its own overseas empire, and this seems to be a common theme we see with Russia, wanting now to expand and regain the old Soviet Union from the mid-twentieth century.
Will Vlad get to expand his kingdom, or will he suffer the same fate of those that went before? Time will tell…
About the Creator
Dean Gee
Inquisitive Questioner, Creative Ideas person. Marketing Director. I love to write about life and nutrition, and navigating the corporate world.
Germany’s Nationalist AfD Party Hopes to Take Power in 2026
Germany’s political landscape is facing a potential shift as the nationalist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party sets its sights on the 2026 elections. Known for its right-wing populist agenda, anti-immigration rhetoric, and Euroscepticism, the AfD has steadily gained traction over the past decade. While mainstream parties continue to dominate national politics, analysts warn that the AfD’s growing influence could reshape Germany’s policy direction and challenge the country’s longstanding commitment to liberal democracy. The Origins of the AfD Founded in 2013, the AfD initially positioned itself as a Eurosceptic party, opposing the European Union’s handling of the eurozone crisis. Over time, the party shifted its focus toward nationalist and anti-immigration policies, tapping into public frustration over migration, globalization, and perceived threats to German cultural identity. The party has also adopted a strong stance against climate regulations and progressive social policies, appealing to conservative voters who feel alienated by Germany’s traditional political parties. These positions have allowed the AfD to carve out a niche in Germany’s fragmented political landscape. Recent Electoral Gains The AfD has seen steady growth in regional and national elections. In the 2021 federal elections, the party captured around 10% of the vote, becoming the third-largest party in the Bundestag. Its support is particularly strong in eastern Germany, where economic disparities, historical resentment, and dissatisfaction with mainstream politics have contributed to its rise. Political analysts note that the AfD’s success is not only electoral but also cultural. By dominating media narratives on immigration and national identity, the party has shifted public debate and forced mainstream parties to respond to issues they might otherwise have avoided. The 2026 Ambitions Looking ahead to the 2026 elections, the AfD aims to increase its share of seats and, potentially, enter government coalitions at both state and federal levels. Party leaders have emphasized a platform focused on reducing immigration, reforming the European Union, and rolling back environmental regulations. Some strategists within the party believe that growing concerns over energy costs, economic inequality, and social change could bolster voter support. By framing itself as a defender of “traditional German values,” the AfD hopes to attract both its core base and disillusioned voters from the center-right spectrum. Controversies and Criticism The AfD’s rise has not been without controversy. Critics accuse the party of promoting xenophobia, undermining democratic norms, and fostering extremist tendencies. Multiple AfD members have faced scrutiny for inflammatory remarks, associations with far-right groups, and attempts to normalize nationalist rhetoric. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has labeled parts of the AfD as “suspected extremist,” monitoring its activities closely. Opposition parties argue that allowing the AfD into power could threaten Germany’s democratic institutions and international reputation. Public Perception and Support Despite criticism, the AfD retains a loyal voter base. Many supporters argue that the party addresses real concerns about immigration, economic stagnation, and EU bureaucracy that they feel are ignored by mainstream parties. Polls suggest that younger voters and urban populations are less supportive of the AfD, while older, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities continue to provide the party with significant backing. Analysts believe that the 2026 elections could hinge on turnout in these demographic groups. Implications for Germany and Europe The AfD’s potential rise has implications beyond Germany’s borders. As Europe faces migration pressures, energy crises, and political polarization, the success of a nationalist party in one of the continent’s largest economies could inspire similar movements in other countries. European Union leaders have expressed concern that an AfD-led government might adopt policies that clash with EU regulations, potentially straining relations with neighboring countries and weakening cohesion in European decision-making. Challenges Ahead While the AfD hopes to gain power, it faces significant obstacles. Mainstream parties, including the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), are actively campaigning to prevent the AfD from entering government. Additionally, voter concerns about extremism, international relations, and social stability may limit the party’s growth. Coalition-building will also be a challenge. Many parties have ruled out working with the AfD, meaning that even a strong electoral showing may not translate into executive power. Analysts predict that the AfD’s influence may grow through parliamentary presence rather than direct governance. The Role of Media and Messaging The AfD has been adept at using social media and alternative media platforms to bypass traditional journalistic filters. By framing itself as a voice for the “ignored majority,” the party appeals to voters who distrust mainstream institutions. At the same time, investigative journalism and public awareness campaigns have sought to highlight the party’s extremist tendencies and controversial rhetoric. This ongoing battle over narrative and perception will be crucial in shaping the 2026 elections. Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Germany As Germany approaches 2026, the rise of the AfD represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the nation. For supporters, the party embodies a chance to restore national pride and prioritize domestic concerns. For critics, it threatens to destabilize democratic norms and exacerbate social divisions. The upcoming elections will test Germany’s resilience, political maturity, and commitment to pluralism. Whether the AfD succeeds in taking power or remains a powerful opposition force, its impact on Germany’s political discourse—and the broader European context—will be felt for years to come.
By Aarif Lashari6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.