AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.

[Bad@logic]

I think even the idea that you have to go back to 1917 to prevent Russia from becoming "eastern" is overselling it. Up until the current Ukrainian War Russia was definitely viewed as part of Europe, and the questions about whether it is really European have only started to flow since 2022. European is not Western and whether Russia as Western is something that has been discussed more, but again, it only gained traction as a result of a more assertive and independent foreign policy, since 2014 with the first seeds being laid since 2008. Back in say, 2007, I have absolutely no doubt that if you asked the average person in most countries (other than perhaps the belt of central/northern European countries that have had a particularly bad history with Russia) if Russia was Western they would agree unhesitatingly that it is. If Russia had opted for continued rapprochement with its European neighbors and the United States since then, it would very definitely be thought of as Western.

There have certainly always been sprouts of the idea of Russia as Asiatic barbarism and as a non-European country, but they only became significant in the context of imperial competition, principally Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Great Game, the Cold War, etc. Even today if Russia reversed course I would expect that it would eventually be able to return to the West.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

This is my take as well.

The Tsarist state was part of the Concert of Europe. Its culture was celebrated in London and Paris, and not in that orientalizing way they would treat colonial products but as something that spoke to the universal human condition. Their monarchs intermarried with German and British royals. Even their church was not that exotic in the 19th century--a synod governed by the Tsar is not that dissimilar to the state churches of the Protestant countries, and the ritual is no less incomprehensible than the Catholic. Slavophilism was a cultural movement that emphasized the differences, but it wasn't the only ideology in the country--and even it had analogues in other European countries (like Portugal's flirtation with Lusotropicalism). They maintained a secret police--so did France. They exiled convicts unjustly--so did Britain. They committed genocide against indigenous peoples, just like any European empire. They brutalized their European subjects--just like the Hapsburgs.

They only ceased to be part of the West when they became the specter of communism.

But this was largely due to the connections the upper class of each major empire had built, to the point where almost all the monarchs in Europe could claim common descent from a handful of German princes. While it's true that Russia projected the image of a great European power, its economy was still mired in feudalism to an extent where Alexander's baggage filled emancipation was seen as a godsend compared to what had been in place before. After the 1860s, there was a drastic rise in building of railroads and factories, but the failure of the monarchy to even consider major liberal reforms (Count Loris-Melikov's "consitution" consisted a select few commoners to act as advisors with about as much inherent power as medieval England's parliament prior to the Barons' Wars.) led to the radicalization of any progressive thinkers in Russia. These weren't traditional Slavophiles like the conservative writers, but they were also far more belligerent and prone to propaganda of the deed than their European counterparts. Even their writings reflected the merging of politics and exitentialism that dominate Russian political philosophy at the time. When the west began using similar tactics, they explicitly called out the Russian anarchists as inspiration.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

This is one of the biggest nonsense I've ever seen. The country is European, there are moments in its history when it is closer to central and western Europe and there are moments when it is further away. Its peak of influence occurred in the imperial era when the country was one of the greatest European powers. This idea of the Mongols is something more Anglo from what I've seen, but it's still nonsense. The idea of Russia as something strange and foreign comes from the Anglo sphere. With the very idea of Western today being basically the USA and its sphere of influence.

First liberalization is not necessary to be a Western country. Imperial Germany was very authoritarian and was part of the "West". Although I don't like the Western term because it is wrong in the vision of the world of the period. The idea of the Western world involving liberalism comes with the cold war and being parte of the usa sphere. The question is whether the country will be accepted as part of Europe, and the biggest question is power. If Russia industrializes but maintains a semi-democratic and authoritarian government it will be accepted (as it was in OTL). Especially if the Franco-Russian alliance continues to this day in some form (especially Latin Europe). Now whether the Anglo world will accept Russia is another matter.

Germany was also a center of Enlightenment era literature and philosophy that would come to dominate the views of continental intellectuals; meanwhile Russian philosophy was locked in a fuly admitted battle between Wesyernizers, Slavophiles and nihilists.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

This is the case

Orthodoxy was simply the cover issue during the early second millennium; the reality is that the West, particularly in Europe has traditionally defined itself as the nations who play ball in their specific political arena games, whether that be the Concert of Nations of the various multinational organizations (EU, NATO, etc) in an overlapping of alliances. This means Russia was closest to our idea of "the west" during the 19th century when it was in full conversation with with the international politics of Europe, only for it to fall out of orbit (as another poster has pointed out) after the Revolution. But this doesn;t mean Russia at the time was fully in lockstep with European models of politics, having a system of autocracy more backwards and multinational than its Austrian counterpart as well as the necessity of different way to handle Asian imperialism (due to its geography).

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

I think even the idea that you have to go back to 1917 to prevent Russia from becoming "eastern" is overselling it. Up until the current Ukrainian War Russia was definitely viewed as part of Europe, and the questions about whether it is really European have only started to flow since 2022. European is not Western and whether Russia as Western is something that has been discussed more, but again, it only gained traction as a result of a more assertive and independent foreign policy, since 2014 with the first seeds being laid since 2008. Back in say, 2007, I have absolutely no doubt that if you asked the average person in most countries (other than perhaps the belt of central/northern European countries that have had a particularly bad history with Russia) if Russia was Western they would agree unhesitatingly that it is. If Russia had opted for continued rapprochement with its European neighbors and the United States since then, it would very definitely be thought of as Western.

There have certainly always been sprouts of the idea of Russia as Asiatic barbarism and as a non-European country, but they only became significant in the context of imperial competition, principally Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Great Game, the Cold War, etc. Even today if Russia reversed course I would expect that it would eventually be able to return to the West.

You may be right; still you conced that there;s a difference in perspective between the West and Russia that flares up during times of global conflict. There's also the question of Russians themselves and whether they have historically considered themselves members of the liberal West, and whther that be the Slavophilia of the 19th century or the aminosity between Russia and pro-Western instituions such as NATO, it would seem as if a sizable percentage of the Russian people still do not view themselves as in step with Europe.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

I disagree with the geopolitical impact and the exact borders of each "civilization". The lines given do roughly correlate with perceived civilizational spheres with the exception being Africa, Latin America, and Japan but those are open to a degree of debate.

Latvia is protestant and only came under Russian rule in the 1700s. Orthodox Europeans have always been viewed as distinct from Catholics and Protestants, even if counted as "Western". Even as late as the 1990s, many Europeans wanted to only support the Catholic Croats in the Yugoslav wars.

Precisely. Greece is more conventionally western than the other Orthodox states, not just because it is descended directly from the progenitors of western civilization but also because historically, the modern day state of Greece has been used as a springboard for European intervention in the Balkans, from the contributions Europe made to defeat the Ottomans in the name of reclaiming their cultural ancestry (and freeing it from the sick man of Europe) to its service as a launchpoint for the attempted liberation of the Balkans to even its present status one of the nations most heavily dependent on the bailouts of the European Union.

There's also the fact that Japan is not its own region but rather part of the Sinosphere, being only one of three directly influenced by the Chinese to still use their writing system outside of formal texts and having a philosophical tradition that mixes Neo-Confucianism with aspects of Shinto and Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

Can you, please, elaborate on what “liberalization” of the economy means within the context of the second half XIX century - early XX? To be more specific, how was it liberalized or not liberalized during the reigns of AII and his successors. Not general slogans, but specific facts with the actions and consequences.

What I mean by liberalization is that the poswer of the feudal nobility is disrupted and reduced to that of honors bestowed by the crown, while Russian economy would abandon the concept of land as power by seeing its source of income be transferred to private enterprise. Remember, Marx himself was admanant that the Revolution would being in western Europe and would have seen it as a misunderstanding of his principles to try forcing socialist revolution onto a manorial state. While you can make the argument that such a transitory phase under capitalism might not be necessary in other schools of socialist revolution simply by looking at examples from the slave revolts in North America or the Peasants'Revolt in Germany, the attempt to do so in tsarist Russia only left the nation far more diplomatically isolated and alien to the West than it would have been under any system of full Europeanization.

 

[Viking25]

Having a Catholic Russia would be the way.

So a Sviatpolk the accursed victory in the War of Kyivan Succession is what your asking for?

But it’s a post-1917 phenomena that Russia is not Western or real European, a person in the 19th century would understand the concept but find it stupid.

It really is not. Like even during the Great War, arguing more or less similar ideas to this. Check out for instance British War Poet Rupert Brooke’s hot take on the war in 1914.

Everything just the wrong way around. I want Germany to smash Russia to fragments and then France to break Germany.....Russia means the end of Europe and any decency

Not that he was particularly relevant politically but lets not pretend everybody started screeching about Asiastic Hordes the minute the red banner was flown out.

Latvia is protestant and only came under Russian rule in the 1700s. Orthodox Europeans have always been viewed as distinct from Catholics and Protestants, even if counted as "Western". Even as late as the 1990s, many Europeans wanted to only support the Catholic Croats in the Yugoslav wars.

Not always during the early years of the Protestant reformation they were plenty of Protestants willing to swear up and down they had way more in common with the Orthodox Christians and even Muslims than those damn Papists.

 

[alexmilman]

What I mean by liberalization is that the poswer of the feudal nobility is disrupted and reduced to that of honors bestowed by the crown, while Russian economy would abandon the concept of land as power by seeing its source of income be transferred to private enterprise.

Sorry, the the Russian nobility of the XIX century and even of the XVIIIth hardly was a “feudal” in any meaningful meaning of the word, especially after the Freedom of the Nobility law of Peter III. It was just a nobility, as everywhere else with no feudal obligations.

But this class lost most of its political power to the bureaucracy by the second quarter of the XIX century and its economic power after emancipation of the serfs. By the early XX or even earlier it list most of its lands as well and by 1913 over 85% of the agricultural land belonged to the small holders (less than 50 hectares).

As far as the enterprises are involved, in the XVIII - XIX most of the manufactures were owned by the nobility (including ennobled commoners) but after 1860s even that was gone and there was a normal development of the capitalism along the usual world-wide lines. Admittedly, it started later than in most of the advanced countries but the rates of development had been high enough to get the German General Staff worried.

Remember, Marx himself was admanant that the Revolution would being in western Europe and would have seen it as a misunderstanding of his principles to try forcing socialist revolution onto a manorial state.

Marx’ ideas on pretty much everything had been thoroughly compromised by the realities of life, which were going pretty much in a direction opposite to his predictions. Instead of getting more and more impoverished the industrial proletariat was steadily improving its economic situation spreading it to the non-industrial workers. Instead of growing in numbers indefinitely, size of the industrial proletariat in the leading countries is steadily shrinking. Instead of growing in popularity, the communist parties in the developed countries are losing it, especially among the industrial workers. An idea that the workers, as those controlling the means of production, will take power proved to be a dantasy.

While you can make the argument that such a transitory phase under capitalism might not be necessary in other schools of socialist revolution simply by looking at examples from the slave revolts in North America or the Peasants'Revolt in Germany, the attempt to do so in tsarist Russia only left the nation far more diplomatically isolated and alien to the West than it would have been under any system of full Europeanization.

I have no idea what you are talking about because Tsarist Russia was deeply integrated into the world’s diplomatic system. And the Bolsheviks coup happened not in Tsarist Russia.

 

[Salvador79]

Before I updated this thread (seeing only the first couple of postings from yesterday), I would have said:
COME ON GUYS, it's true that Putin is the aggressor in Ukraine and is posing his Russia as the counterpole to Westernness, but does that really justify using such a kind of blatant suprematist and racist discourse? I mean, what other group of humans is it presently acceptable to treat this way? You wouldn't post a thread with the title:
"How could Negroes be seen less as slaving animals?"
(I'm using all these words in quotation marks for my anti-racist argument, so please don't kick me because of the N-word...)
or
"How could the Chinese be seen less as the yellow threat?"
And there's tons of good reason for this. Such statements are full of suprematist stereotypes and shift the blame for one's own stereotypes on the stereotyped.
Why, then, is it acceptable to ask of the Russians what they could have done to escape being Othered?

Then, thankfully, alexmilman came along and started to debunk this, and others have contributed, too, and now the thread is a bit more reflexive.

I don't know if it makes sense to attempt to answer a problematic question, but I'll try...
So we've established that there are two ways to look at this: the development of British, French, German, American etc. stereotypes of Russia and any real differential development on the ground.

As for the development of stereotypes, I think there is some good research by Frithjof Schenk on the matter:

Mental Maps: The Cognitive Mapping of the Continent as an Object of Research of European History — EGO

Spatial concepts such as "Europe", the "West" or the "Mediterranean region" not only define political debate, but also the historiographical discourse. Historical research into mental maps investigates the history of these concepts of the regional division of the world, which vary from culture...

ieg-ego.eu

And a newer take on the issue, although I haven't read this one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/johs.12390
To sum up Schenk in a nutshell, he says that the Modern Age, and pivotally around the turn from the 18th to the 19th centuries, saw a shift from the long-standing stereotype which arranged a "civilized" (wealthy, cultured) Mediterranean South against a "barbarous" (poor, uncultured) North in Europe - and here already, the Rus, Muscovy etc. were grouped on the bad side, being viewed as a Northern country - into a new mental map which differentiated primarily along a West-East axis, with the West allegedly being enlightened (18th century), then also industrial and liberal (from the 19th century onwards), while the East was stereotyped as superstitious, agricultural/backwards and illiberal. Or, as Schenk puts it, Russia "migrated from the North to the East", but remaiend Othered.
This shift from North vs. South to West vs East has many underlying reasons: from the Islamic conquests which helped foster the Othering of half the Mediterranean over the Reformation, British colonialism and industrialisation etc. Nothing much "Russia" could have done here, but if all of that had gone differently, well, it's doubtful that "Russia" would ever have come into existence in a no Islam world, but if it had, it might have ended up grouped on another bad end of a spectrum.

As for real underlying differences, one that isn't a myth is the lower degree of urbanisation (at least up until Stalin's age) - and also one that sets apart what is presently Ukraine , where urbanisation was higher, from the rest of what used to be the Russian Empire. Now one can project a lot of things onto urbanisation - it could be very relevant, providing for the development of a broader bourgeoisie. It could also be overrated if we look at many Anglo-Saxon settler colonies who were very rural yet view themselves as the epitome of Westernness.
To have a much more urban "Russia", you should probably try to do away with the Mongol invasion. The old Kievan Rus was not called "Gardariki", i.e. land of castles, for nothing by the Norse; it was a town-centered culture, not one focusing on exporting agricultural goods Westwards, as was the case with much of Eastern Europe from the 17th century onwards. Not sure how such a land would develop, if it would end up in modernity as one state or as many, but it might make a difference. Also, I haven't seen any TL here or anywhere else which would have tried to develop this path...

 

[DJ03]

This is the case

what is the map's criteria for coloring a country?

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

For a certain value of "Russia" -- the Novgorod Republic was a maritime mercantile state with close ties to the Hanseatic League, Scandinavia, and the rest of the Baltic Sea. If things had worked out differently, I can imagine the great houses of Novgorod participating in the dynastic politics of the HRE, Poland-Lithuania, etc. Perhaps Novgorod could retain its preeminence over Moscow after the Mongol conquests -- I'm not 100% sure how they should do things differently, but if Novgorod was the Mongols' main trading-post with the Hansa, and vice versa, then they could become very rich and powerful indeed.

Kiev, of course, would also be an important city/realm, and would be a lot more Byzantine/"Eastern." I don't know how Kiev would be "Westernised" -- maybe its cultural preeminence would decline after the Mongols, and an ascendant Novgorod would promote a slightly more Catholic-ish Orthodoxy, and a slightly more Germanicised Slavic identity and language?

 

[someone45356]

Ah, Huntington's Clash of Civilization's map. I thought this was laughably debunked in the 2010s, yet here it is, still getting posted!

I don't even know where to begin? An undeveloped jungle state like Papua New Guinea being part of the Western world. The Guianas being half African for some reason, but Haiti and Jamaica are Latin American. Indonesia, Albania, and Bangladesh being grouped up with other Muslims just due to religion despite the fact that their cultures has nothing in common with Arabians. Latvia being a Western country, but Greece isn't despite Greeks creating the western identity and European identity. South Korea is Sinic, but Japan is its own category. The Philippines being whatever strange monstrosity it is! East Thrace being of a different civilization than the rest of Turkey. What hack thought that this was relevant to geopolitics?

If it wasn't for African being its own thing, this would simply be a religion map. Just replace Western with Protestant, Latin American with Catholic, make Japanese Buddhist, and paint a few European countries different colors.

Haiti is ”Latin American” though, they speak a version of french and french comes from latin. I would argue that if they added Haiti, Quebec shouldve also been added as well. Otherwise if we assume territories or provinces cant be separted on exception then places like Puerto Rico could not be latin america….. despite the ironic thing that that would be.

I think really if they wanted to separate the countries south of the US so badly the real term to use would’ve been “Iberoamerica”. It excludes Haiti, Quebec, and anything else that isn’t shared with Iberian cultures.

I think greece is in a weird position as well. People love to claim it was the cradle of western civilization, but culturally both in music, food, etc, its also the cradle for a lot of aspects of middle eastern culture as well as other influences across eastern europe and the caucasus, which leaves it very much in a in-between position where you can’t really categorize it as well as you could countries in the extremes of this. “The european identity” that a lot of hellenophiles long ago loved to spread that narrative did not consider the then and even current more nuanced position as far as what greece even is.

I agree the philippines looks like a mess, and all I can wonder is how come they get to be a western country but “latin america” is its own category despite only one of these speaking a european language as of rn.

 

[Viking25]

Kiev, of course, would also be an important city/realm, and would be a lot more Byzantine/"Eastern." I don't know how Kiev would be "Westernised" -- maybe its cultural preeminence would decline after the Mongols, and an ascendant Novgorod would promote a slightly more Catholic-ish Orthodoxy, and a slightly more Germanicised Slavic identity and language?

Have Vladimir the Great go Catholic instead of Orthodox? Maybe a more significant Catholic Presence in Eastern Europe for whatever reason?

 

[WinRar Archivist]

Is Russia Western? It depends on what you mean. By Western do you mean full of indigenous European Christians? Then yes. If by Western you mean a high-income liberal democratic nation? then no. Only the speaker knows what they mean by Western. I've seen maps of Western Civilization that included every country west of Iran. I've seen maps of Western Civilization that only included the USA, UK, and former white homelands of the UK (Canada, New Zealand, Australia). Western is just one of those concepts that seem obvious until you actually try to define it. The White/Caucasian race is also in the same boat.

The present concept of Western in Europe is very much tied to the Iron Curtain (though Czechia and Slovakia have kinda jumped over the fence, and Hungary ).

That curtain is still quite existents in terms of economic development and more or less the present cultural divide of progressism versus conservatism.

But since this is in Before 1900 westernizing Russia means early industralisation of the country, profound agrarian reform, abandoning absolutism and promotion of literacy.

The key is to stop Russia from being perceived by Western Europe as backwater, barbaric, exotic or Orientalist. As soon as Russia is perceived as a self-civilesed country, without becoming an existential power threat in Europe, it should be successful.

Of course, it's also necessary for Russia to avoid the adoption of the Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality - that means doing away with Nicholas I.

Maybe an American Constitution inspired Decembrist Russian Republic, maintaing close ties with the United States would work quite well in this matter.

 

[Kronistry]

The way you answered it makes your argument pointless: you were talking (if I looked at the right post) about the elite, not the whole population. Which has little to do with the democracy. In the cultural terms the Russian elite was quite “western” with a big part of it being “modern” and liberal. If not necessarily to the same degree as Prince Kropotkin or Count Lev Tolstoy. But one thing is definite: the Russian culture and “educated classes” were much more open and much less xenophobic than the British

I'm not sure You looked at the right post or You maybe misunderstood it. I was saying that a)liberalization and democratization were long term processes and b) that the elites 'wanted' certain things for themselves. E.g: the British elites wanting 'liberty' (commerce, political participation...) and the French elites wanting mostly to unite everything under the King (egalite), then the state after 1789 (for those who weren't nobles). I was also saying that ironically the French nobility looked more like the Russian one because their failure at countering the King/Tsar led them to their fall whereas the English, Prussian, Spanish nobles were successful at one part of their History at 'allying' with other non-noble elites to limit the sovereign's power or to assure their predominent position (actually that last part about the English, Prussian and Spanish nobles wasn't on my post). And of course, it is an oversimplification, and I have doubt there are many counter-examples but it doesn't contradict the long term processes at play.

North Korea is post-wwii phenomena and we are in a wrong forum to discuss it. Anyway, it has nothing in common with the Russian Empire of the late XIX - early XX while the similarities between the three empires I mentioned are rather clear: all of them had been constitutional monarchies.

They were DE JURE constituonnal monarchies. But You know well that a constitutionnal monarchy is not the same as parlementarian monarchies (Germany and A-H are generally considered Semi-constitutionnal monarchies bc theire parlaments lacked power, but at least they were not multiple Times dissolved in less than 12 years and reformists weren't that directly impeded to enter it). But this is true they had this similiarity.

Bringing up the Bloody Sunday as a typical example is a subject beaten to death and it did happen before RE became the constitutional monarchy. Anyway, “similar” is not the same as “identical”. BTW, the Brits had been firing at the peaceful manifestation in India.

The brits were a 'democracy' at home and I never Said they were not racist or ruthless with their colonies. From this point of view US's War crimes in Vietnam deprive them of their liberal and democratic political characteristics (I know it is post-1900, but the situation is pretty similar).

So the “modern” and “western” means “wealthy”?

No I was just trying to give a reason to why Germany was more liberal than Russia, but You misunderstood my point.

It was a constitutional monarchy. Being “western” does not require “democracy” (a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives). In Britain the universal suffrage was introduced only in 1928

Here's the core of our disagreement, the ' West' is a cultural term IMO, not a political one. I was just saying that many Russian elites (the majority from what I know, or at least they always led the movement) disliked the 'western liberalism' and considered them to be something else that Western (not everyone, but finally this vision is the one who won in Russia).

This is quite irrelevant. The relevant question was this act constitutional? If yes, then it is not an autocracy.

So the Kingdom of France between 1670 and 1789 wasn't an autocracy because the Kings were limited on certain points (Louis XIV couldn't chose himself his heir). It was not a constitution but this wasn't common at the time, that's why the UK never adopted a constitution.

I just said that your point of view contradicts to many widely known facts. Nothing about your point of view being original.

Can you elaborate because I would really want (unironically) your arguments more precisely for Russia not being an autocracy. I had been convinced some time ago that Qing Imperial China wasn't that different from the UK, so you might change my mind.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

Have Vladimir the Great go Catholic instead of Orthodox? Maybe a more significant Catholic Presence in Eastern Europe for whatever reason?

Maybe if Poland remained a major force in Central/Eastern Europe? Poland was a Slavic nation, but also a Catholic one, which developed ties to many Western dynasties (it was variously ruled by the Houses of Habsburg, Anjou, Wettin, Vasa, Báthory, and others). Like Novgorod, it was closely tied to Hanseatic merchants, and it had an electoral government (not that Poland-Lithuania was at all identical to the veche system; it was much more similar to the HRE tbh, but that's not how the nationalist/ideological mythmaking might go).

Actually, that might be interesting -- if, in the 18th or 19th century, Russia developed a sense of nationalism around a long, mythologised history of democracy. That could help Russia be thought of as "Western" -- if, during the age of popular mass ideologies, Russia develops a liberal/constitutionalist/republican nationalist identity. Kind of like France variously post-Revolution; Italy during the Napoleonic era; Germany (Confederation of the Rhine and/or after WW2); etc. It'd be interesting if democracy and Enlightenment principles became associated with Central/Eastern Europe. Maybe the Cossack hetmanates could fall into this, too. And if they survive as well, maybe Islamic institutions -- like the Turkic/Tatar/Mongol kurultay, or the Circassian/Caucasian majlis, could be folded into this "European" identity as well. Especially if it includes the Hungarian kurultay.

 

[Kronistry]

Of course, it's also necessary for Russia to avoid the adoption of the Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality - that means doing away with Nicholas I.

So to become a western country, Russia has to stop being Russia (Orthodoxy is the main core of Russian identity and autocratic-like political functionning has been the most prevalent in Russia since the 16th century). As for Nationality, do You mean 'nationalism' ? I don't really understand what you mean.

 

[Aluma]

The Bolshevik revolution did produce an ideological split which made “western” notion meaningful but this is post-1900 and belongs to a different forum. Totalitarian regimes were not unique in post-wwi Europe but Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not cease to be considered the “western” states because of their regimes.

To be fair I've seen people say Germany was no longer "western" anymore but a threat to the "West" in Axis Victory scenarios, so I'd say the whole western thing is more ideological than anything else
It doesnt matter which nation it is, if it suddenly goes "rogue" with a "rogue" ideology then it is no longer western according to its western neighbours, however if it triumphs over them like America has done(formerly being seen as a rogue republican colony led by insurgent revolutionaries) or like Russia would've done in scenarios where it won the Cold War(or the Russian Empire rules the world) then it suddenly calls the shoots on who can and can not be considered western and part of the so called West as it is a completely arbitrary ideological concept ultimately based on might makes right

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Simple. Forget all that "West" nonsense and let Russia be its own country. Not embracing American definitions of "the West" and re-acknowledging the fact that Europe exists and Russia is part of it.

Expanding: Personally this has reminded me of the similar threads about how Japan is a strange and totally foreign entity to the West towards which equally similar ideas are poured.

I would say that a similar response is most appropriate in this case, which would basically be that Russia would need to take a break from Western ideas.

In the case of Japan what we see is that they try to be Western, while Russia is already in the phase of "Oh what the hell, trying to be Western is a waste of time. Those idiots are never going to accept us no matter what we do."