In a striking turn of events, Russian nationalists are now expressing a contentious desire for the territory of Alaska, which was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867.
This peculiar interest stems from various claims that the land deal was either a lease rather than a sale or that there were illegal influences affecting the American lawmakers of the time.
Consequently, nationalists are suggesting that President Putin should reclaim Alaska during a hypothetical visit to the state, framing it as a rightful imperial acquisition for the Russian people.
Given the present demographics of Alaska, which have shifted significantly with over 50 percent of the population being Americans of Western European descent, one’s imagination can indulge in how the residents would react to such a notion of becoming a Russian territory.
The rights of Alaskan bear hunters, accustomed to American freedoms, would likely clash with the implications of being governed by contemporary Russian authority.
The idea of having Russian Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear” bombers stationed on Alaskan airfields raises eyebrows, illustrating the absurdity of this nationalist ambition.
Historically, the Russian Empire’s expansive reach often escapes the American consciousness, primarily because contemporary Russia has predominantly been viewed through the lenses of totalitarian governance and socialist ideals.
Yet, Russia transitioned from a tsardom to a mighty empire over a span of 370 years, peaking in population and territory during the early 20th century.
Before World War I, the Russian Empire boasted a population exceeding 160 million, showcasing significant dominance.
Comparatively, the United States population at the same time numbered around half that.
Stretching from parts of modern Poland to Alaska and extending deep into Asia, even claiming portions of Japan and Korea, Russia’s empire was arguably the largest contiguous land empire in history prior to the rise of the American territory.
Thus, for contemporary Russian nationalists, witnessing military endeavors aimed at reclaiming Ukraine poses the rhetorical question: Why not also pursue other former territories like Alaska?
This line of thinking discounts the complexities involved in modern geopolitics and the respect for existing international borders established through treaties and recognition.
Delving into the historical context specific to Alaska reveals that Russian nationalists’ aspirations hinge upon the narrative of territorial reclamation.
However, it is essential to clarify that factual support for claims of a conspiracy within the 1867 land deal remains virtually non-existent.
Alaska’s fate was shaped significantly by the repercussions of the Crimean War, wherein the Russian Empire faced immense financial strain and territorial losses.
Tsar Alexander II, contemplating the empire’s future, initiated an evaluation of its holdings and their respective viability.
Alaska, during this period, was viewed as an asset requiring considerable naval protection, while its economic prospects were dwindling due to overhunting of valuable resources like sea otter pelts.
With oil and its associated economic impacts not yet in play, the Tsar was compelled to consider selling this remote territory to interested parties.
While Britain might have been a potential buyer, animosities stemming from the Crimean War resulted in hesitation, leading the Tsar to explore a sale to the United States instead.
Despite a lack of initial enthusiasm from the American side, discussions about purchasing Alaska progressed, primarily due to the presence of American hunters and traders already traversing the Alaskan frontier.
When the deal was finalized on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million, it was met with significant skepticism from the American public, garnering the moniker “Seward’s Folly,” a reference to Secretary of State William Seward’s bold move.
At this time, the United States was still grappling with post-Civil War challenges, including high governmental debt and the complexities of integrating vast new territories.
Yet, Seward’s foresight would later prove influential, as he recognized the deal’s potential to secure American interests against British expansion in the region.
Moreover, subsequent discoveries of valuable resources, including gold in the late 1800s and oil shortly thereafter, transformed the financial outlook of Alaska, establishing it as a valuable asset for the U.S.
Ultimately, Alaska’s acquisition is backed by a valid treaty, meticulously drafted and signed by both nations.
This treaty speaks to the formalities of international agreements and bolsters the legitimacy of the land deal.
In contrast, the contemporary aspirations of Russian nationalists rest upon unfounded claims rather than substantiated historical grievances.
Such discussions first appear as fascinating yet unrealistic notions shaped by a nostalgic view of imperialism rather than grounded geopolitical realities.
The modern implications of Russian nationalism suggest a yearning for former glory, yet they must contend with established international norms that protect the sovereignty of nations, including that of Alaska as an integral part of the United States.
Therefore, while discussions surrounding Alaska’s historical ties to Russia may evoke curiosity, they highlight the significant complexities involved in notions of territorial reclamation in today’s geopolitical landscape.
Asserting control over territories, particularly through romanticized views of heritage, clashes with the contemporary principles of self-determination and international law, suggesting that tales of imperial nostalgia are best left in the annals of history.
image source from：wearethemighty
