So this post popped up. I'm not really sure WHY it's there, it seems to be a random copypasta. And thankfully it is a copypasta, but I find that its worthy of tearing down.

(R)ussian history starts when the Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugric peoples start to settle down and establish a state, and they open relations with the Byzantines and adopt Christianity.

So not exactly. The mythical founding year of Rus (which I don't really consider to be 'Russia') is 862. Rus converted to Orthodox Christianity in the 980s. The myth behind Rurik though says that he was a Varangian, who were more Scandinavian than Finno-Ugric. The foundation myth also says that the local Slavs asked the Varangians to 'please please be our overlords'. I'm skeptical about that, but since it's just a myth, it can slide.

Genghis came (in the winter, mind you) and in less than three years, the Mongols completely destroyed the young state of Rus', killing over half it's people.

Rus' (again, not Russia) was not really a united state, not the way modern people understand it at least. In some ways it reminds me, a bit, of the Holy Roman Empire - there were semi-independent principalities, tied to a central authority (whose rule was not absolute) and held together (at times) be religion and language. Over a 3 year campaign, would it really matter if the Mongols kicked things off in the winter? Also, Mongolia and the Central Asian steppes aren't exactly known for being Warm and Tropical.

The Mongol Empire collapsed, leaving a power void in Asia. Russia reestablished itself as the Grand Duchy, and then the Tsardom, but it took a very long time before Russia could be considered a regional power.

MOSCOW was a Grand Duchy. It existed as a sub-unit of Kievan Rus'. Nor did the Mongol empire collapse all at once. It was a nice slow process that (surprise) led to things like the Grand Duchy of Moscow becoming a regional power. Also, I take issue with the wording 'Russia re-established itself'. Russia had never established itself in the first place, re-establishment seems to be quite a stretch.

In the age of Empire, Russia, with no warm water ports, could not expand across the seas, and was blocked by powerful Germany/HRE/Austria in the West, so they expanded East, and the more they expanded, the more clear it was that Russia was forming an identity for itself that was somehow different from the rest of Europe. As the empire grew, it also grew more isolated. They fell behind, economically and socially. Feudalism in the form of lords and serfs existed in Russia until 1861, but when it was abolished, it only made the lower classes even poorer. In 1906 a constitution was written, but the Aristocracy rejected it.

Wow....So first of all, the fact that all the time between ~ 1500-1780(90) gets really glossed over really bugs me. Lots of stuff happened, including Mikhail Romanov (a slow reformer), Peter the First's (Great) reforms (not a slow reformer), and (depending on when we put the start time of 'the Age of Empire') people like Catherine the Great, the Napoleonic Wars and the Decembrist Revolt. Its really tough to say 'here's a history of Russia' and leave all that stuff out, not to mention the stuff that I've left out for brevity's sake.

As far as the 3 blocking powers to the West - First of all, no mention of the Ottomans, the Russian Empire's constant foil and enemy? Ok fine, sure. Because the Russian Empire certainly went to war against the HRE, Germany, and Austria-Hungary a lot.... Let's not even mention that Germany and the HRE aren't even close to being the same thing...

Moving on we find that Serfdom in Russia existed until 1861. Shockingly, it was more or less chattel slavery, it was just called something else.

I am particularly enraged by the 'abolishing serfdom made the lower classes poorer'. Yes, that's almost exactly what happens when in exchange for 'no more serfdom' you saddle people who had nothing with a huge, inheritable debt. I'm going to post in the thread a chapter from Pytor Krapotkin's Memoirs of a Revolutionist. He certainly had an ax to grind, but Russian Serfdom wasn't some kind of blissful existence.

World War 1 began. It was kind of Russia's fault, they were the first to mobilize their military (well, they somehow managed to sneak around using the word "mobilize" so that after the war they could point the finger at Germany, who mobilized in response to Russia's "totally-not-a-mobilization") Russia was not ready for the war, the people didn't want the war, they had no stake in the squabbles of Balkan powers,

So the idea of War Guilt has been covered by others who are much more well versed in such things. Russia had plenty at stake (from their perspective) in the Balkan powers. As much at least as Germany did. It seems strange to modern eye, but back then not so much.

And then things got worse. Revolution! The Tsars were kicked out in March of 1917, and were replaced by the Russian Republic.

I've never seen how Nicholas II's abdication (not getting kicked out) and the establishment of the Russian Republic would make things worse (FYI between the passages, the refrain 'and then things got worse' is repeated. On top of all the badhistory, it's also Whig Bad History).

Revolution! The Russian Republic was kicked out by the Bolsheviks in the Red October, establishing the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, led by Vladmir Lenin. They made peace with the Germans and Austrians, and consolidated power for the next several years, socializing every business they possibly could, and then forming the USSR.

We're not going to talk about the Civil War? Arguably, yes that DOES make everything worse, but since it's actually a pointable "wow things really got worse" moment bit...it's totally glossed over. Sorry Admirals Denikin and Kolchak, you've been written out of history.

Anyhow, very early in Soviet History, Lenin reversed course and started NEP, which was quite successful. It was later reversed by Stalin - but for the time it was in NEP was quite capitalist in its nature.

So I'm going to stop here. The other stuff, well it's bad World War II history, glosses over lots of important parts about glasnost or will just come close to being out and out Rule 2 violations.

Sources you say? Here's a few: A History of Russia : 8th Edition whihc was a constant companion for a few years.

Memoirs of a Revolutionist which is a great look at Russia in the 19th century, from the point of view of an upper class man trying to overthrow the system.