How Russia Went from Ally to Adversary(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How Russia Went from Ally to Adversary
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/19/how-the-west-lost-the-peace-philipp-ther-book-review
88 comments
I agree in principal but it might not have happened in practice. The West gets a lot of blame for what happened in Russia in the 90s, and it's not unfair that it should get some of that blame. However, the plan wasn't that Russian companies and resource rights were sold at a knock off price to Russian oligarchs. The idea was that on the open market they would have been worth an enormous amount and that Russians would have benefited from both the injection of cash and the follow up investment to modernise their industry.
Of course, pretty easy for those in power in Russia to make a big deal to people there about their industry being bought by foreign powers, to make that unattractive or even illegal, and to then snap it all up for next to nothing. The West should have foreseen this and had an alternative plan, more like local partnerships or whatever.
Of course, pretty easy for those in power in Russia to make a big deal to people there about their industry being bought by foreign powers, to make that unattractive or even illegal, and to then snap it all up for next to nothing. The West should have foreseen this and had an alternative plan, more like local partnerships or whatever.
> plan wasn't that Russian companies and resource rights were sold at a knock off price to Russian oligarchs
In the first century B.C.E., Julius Caesar implemented a series of redistributionist land reforms [1]. One component was a minimum-hold period to prevent the aristocrats from just going and buying it all back up again.
The re-concentration was absolutely foreseeable. Classical history is no longer fashionable in American elite education, so I get how this was overlooked by the bankers. But it points to a lack of a give-a-shit-factor which, in my agreement with you, does not confer responsibility, but does represent a massive missed opportunity.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate#Caesar’s_c... search Lex agraria
In the first century B.C.E., Julius Caesar implemented a series of redistributionist land reforms [1]. One component was a minimum-hold period to prevent the aristocrats from just going and buying it all back up again.
The re-concentration was absolutely foreseeable. Classical history is no longer fashionable in American elite education, so I get how this was overlooked by the bankers. But it points to a lack of a give-a-shit-factor which, in my agreement with you, does not confer responsibility, but does represent a massive missed opportunity.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate#Caesar’s_c... search Lex agraria
if classical history is required to be able to foresee such a thing, then maybe people've lost their common sense.
Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan? It was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
To avoid, well, this.
In general I think the west tends to underestimate how frail a young democracy is.
Western-style Democracy isn't something that spontaneously happens when a despot is removed. It takes a long-ass time for the institutions to establish legitimacy, and when installed in an environment when there's large inequalities from the get-go, things may change, but they will also stay the same.
Manufacturing prosperity through something like the Marshall plan is one way to actually let things settle in the right way.
In general I think the west tends to underestimate how frail a young democracy is.
Western-style Democracy isn't something that spontaneously happens when a despot is removed. It takes a long-ass time for the institutions to establish legitimacy, and when installed in an environment when there's large inequalities from the get-go, things may change, but they will also stay the same.
Manufacturing prosperity through something like the Marshall plan is one way to actually let things settle in the right way.
Why worry about a problem that might happen 30 years down the line when you can make an outrageous amount of money today.. Heck, why worry about a problem that can happen next year if you can can make a good profit right now..
As the climate crisis shows, we are perpetually and knowingly heading for the proverbial brick wall full steam ahead in the name of a quick buck.
As the climate crisis shows, we are perpetually and knowingly heading for the proverbial brick wall full steam ahead in the name of a quick buck.
I don't know if it's true but I've seen it argued that shortsightedness of western capitalism was kept in check by the five year planning of the eastern bloc, and when the wall fell, that check was essentially removed and most of our problems today is a result of that.
As I said, I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Maybe it's true at least in the sense that during the cold war, the west couldn't really afford to rest on its laurels. Even the most dysfunctional market had to be compelled to beat the Soviet null hypothesis as a matter of survival for the way of life.
As I said, I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Maybe it's true at least in the sense that during the cold war, the west couldn't really afford to rest on its laurels. Even the most dysfunctional market had to be compelled to beat the Soviet null hypothesis as a matter of survival for the way of life.
> Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan?
Same reason we did in 1948: to preserve and strengthen a hard-won peace.
> was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
I’ve never seen someone tie FDR’s New Deal to the Marshall Plan. Curious if there’s a substantiated link.
Same reason we did in 1948: to preserve and strengthen a hard-won peace.
> was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
I’ve never seen someone tie FDR’s New Deal to the Marshall Plan. Curious if there’s a substantiated link.
Fully agree.
The other factor, aside from greed, that caused the asset stripping madness was the worry that the socialists would retake power in Russia as they had a significant presence in parliament. I’ve heard that part of the need for speed (and lack of longterm plan) was the perception that Russia needed to see off that threat ASAP.
But came next was much worse.
The other factor, aside from greed, that caused the asset stripping madness was the worry that the socialists would retake power in Russia as they had a significant presence in parliament. I’ve heard that part of the need for speed (and lack of longterm plan) was the perception that Russia needed to see off that threat ASAP.
But came next was much worse.
> socialists
Communists. But you are right, every opposition leader in Russia cries wolf how they should not have supported Yeltsin rigging elections and how it all went astray since then
Communists. But you are right, every opposition leader in Russia cries wolf how they should not have supported Yeltsin rigging elections and how it all went astray since then
The Marshall Plan started in 1948. Germany was under US occupation until 1952. Which means any embezzlement of funds could be prosecuted directly by the occupiers.
Try to send a few billion in Russia. How much do you expect to be stolen?
Try to send a few billion in Russia. How much do you expect to be stolen?
Americans always eyeing to strip Russia of their resources. You can check out how much illegality with American troops selling just oil in Iraq and northern Syria. Russia has huge access to artic with methane ice reserve that exceeding multiple Saudi's oil reserve. Russia has uranium, gold, iron, rare earths, and tons of other minerals exceeding multiple USA. There is simply no possibility of Russia viewed as ally unless USA itself fractured into multiple countries (in some eastern prophecies this is a possibility - even John Titor mentioned it in his timeline - read the version copyrighted in Library of Congress and not subsequent addons).
Two words: Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Note that the doctrine applies to all countries external to the USA. Which includes allies such as the EU.
Note that the doctrine applies to all countries external to the USA. Which includes allies such as the EU.
>By the logic of co-transformation, we urged brutal free-market policies on Eastern Europe, and then imposed them on ourselves. Having participated in the creation of the Russian monster, we are now forced to become monsters to battle it, to manufacture and sell more weapons, to cheer the death of Russian soldiers, to spend more and more on defense, both here and in Europe, and to create the atmosphere and conditions of a second Cold War, because we failed to figure out how to secure the peace after the last one.
>The development of Russia in the post-Cold War period was not the result of a Western plot or Western actions. Russian officials chose, within a narrow range of options, how to behave, and they could have chosen differently. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in February, 2022, was no more inevitable or foreordained than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Still, it’s worth asking what other course we might have followed.
>The development of Russia in the post-Cold War period was not the result of a Western plot or Western actions. Russian officials chose, within a narrow range of options, how to behave, and they could have chosen differently. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in February, 2022, was no more inevitable or foreordained than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Still, it’s worth asking what other course we might have followed.
It is also worth stating that the US set the precedent [in post-Cold War era - Edit] for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit. Some examples include:
* Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999
* Invasion of Iraq in 2003
* Recognition of Kosovo in 2008
* Military intervention in Libya 2011
* Snowden's revelations of global surveillance in 2013
* Military intervention in Syria 2014
Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
* Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999
* Invasion of Iraq in 2003
* Recognition of Kosovo in 2008
* Military intervention in Libya 2011
* Snowden's revelations of global surveillance in 2013
* Military intervention in Syria 2014
Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
> the US set the precedent for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit
Nobody followed the human rights or no-foreign military intervention chapters of international law, ever. Not in the Cold War [1]. Not in the 90s [2][3].
The one chapter that was held sacrosanct by the Great Powers was no annexing. There was Metternichean proxy governing. But no annexing. That is the red line Putin blundered through.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre
Nobody followed the human rights or no-foreign military intervention chapters of international law, ever. Not in the Cold War [1]. Not in the 90s [2][3].
The one chapter that was held sacrosanct by the Great Powers was no annexing. There was Metternichean proxy governing. But no annexing. That is the red line Putin blundered through.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre
The US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law. Instead they chose to function as an imperialist power. Today they claim to protect international law.
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
> Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95
Correction, Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
> Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95
Correction, Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...
> US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law
That’s a hell of a punt there. You said “the US set the precedent” for disregarding international law, starting by citing the bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99. Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95, and the Soviet Union (alongside America) was violating the foreign-intervention chapters since basically they were penned.
So no, there was no precedent. America continued with the status quo. You’re arguing Washington failed to create a new precedent, as it did when it had global nuclear hegemony in the aftermath of WWII. That’s a legitimate argument. But a different one from that which you’re making.
That’s a hell of a punt there. You said “the US set the precedent” for disregarding international law, starting by citing the bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99. Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95, and the Soviet Union (alongside America) was violating the foreign-intervention chapters since basically they were penned.
So no, there was no precedent. America continued with the status quo. You’re arguing Washington failed to create a new precedent, as it did when it had global nuclear hegemony in the aftermath of WWII. That’s a legitimate argument. But a different one from that which you’re making.
> Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings
Why are the Americans (or NATO) always responsible for the awful things the Russian government does?
Why are the Americans (or NATO) always responsible for the awful things the Russian government does?
Because Yeltsin was heavily supported by the US. He bombed elected officials not favourable to the US. Similar thing happened when the US supported Saddam and Pinochet
BTW, US embassy staff was trying to negotiate peaceful meeting between opposition and Eltsin's team.
But "elected officials" tried to seize TV building with military force instead of discussions.
I don't see how US could be blamed for this.
I don't see how US could be blamed for this.
im not really interested in blaming the US. but the fact is he would never had gotten away with it had the US not stood by him. at that time in Russia there was a real prospect of communists returning to power ... through elections. mainly im interested in pointing out that the US is a hypocrite when it comes to its own values and that it too should be seen as an imperialist power. same as Russia. only once people see both entities as bad a proper thesis about a better more just world can be made. i have no problem saying f*ck putin or f*ck biden (or f*ck trump) as long as it is in the same sentence
>> only once people see both entities as bad a proper thesis about a better more just world can be made.
You're putting a loser mentality on full display. As much as cynical smartass Russians like to mock "fat stupid Americans", in the end of the day it comes down to what kind of life do governments provide for their citizens. Americans live far longer, healthier, happier, more peaceful and more prosperous lives than you do. They have allies all over the world who willingly engage in commerce, cultural exchange, political and military cooperation, and many other things without coersion because of the mutual benefits it brings.
Russia is a cargo cult version of this. Tries to imitate American influence in the world, but fails, because Russians bring very little of any value to the this world. Mostly things that are in the ground anyway, and not products of their ingenuity and determined work.
No, you are not equals. America is a vast incredibly rich empire, but you're just a gas station with nukes. No amount of whataboutism changes the simple fact that everyone envies the Americans and sees you as losers.
You're putting a loser mentality on full display. As much as cynical smartass Russians like to mock "fat stupid Americans", in the end of the day it comes down to what kind of life do governments provide for their citizens. Americans live far longer, healthier, happier, more peaceful and more prosperous lives than you do. They have allies all over the world who willingly engage in commerce, cultural exchange, political and military cooperation, and many other things without coersion because of the mutual benefits it brings.
Russia is a cargo cult version of this. Tries to imitate American influence in the world, but fails, because Russians bring very little of any value to the this world. Mostly things that are in the ground anyway, and not products of their ingenuity and determined work.
No, you are not equals. America is a vast incredibly rich empire, but you're just a gas station with nukes. No amount of whataboutism changes the simple fact that everyone envies the Americans and sees you as losers.
Im not Russian and I have no Russian herritage. Never even been to Russia (or US). Im from Europe (from a country with a consistently higher life expectancy than that in the US) and like a LOT of other Europeans I find the very many Americans with this kind of obnoxious attitude (which you might call cultural exchange) pretty revolting. Maybe your walled garden information sources wont tell you this but your allies are getting pretty tiered of your Anglo "superiority" attitude. Touch ground
From which country?
i have no problem saying f*ck putin or f*ck biden (or f*ck trump) as long as it is in the same sentence
Some folks are caught in purity spirals. Your basic problem (or at least one of them, anyway -- from the content of your postings here, you seem to have many) is that you're caught in a Whataboutism spiral. Which is just as debilitating, but you don't seem to realize this yet.
Some folks are caught in purity spirals. Your basic problem (or at least one of them, anyway -- from the content of your postings here, you seem to have many) is that you're caught in a Whataboutism spiral. Which is just as debilitating, but you don't seem to realize this yet.
It's not purity about purity, it's about blatant hypocrisy
So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?! He was elected in 1991 (even before USSR collapsed) and had very strong support in Moscow and major cities.
And elections in 1993 (after the dissolution of parliament) were won by Zhirinovsky's party, communists were only 3rd. US never supported Zhirinovsky and he wasn't a communist.
I don't see how US could be blamed for anything that happened in 1993 because they were really trying to stop the crisis, but far-right nationalists (like Barkashov and Makashov) started military actions, like mayor's office assault and TV building attack.
This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
And elections in 1993 (after the dissolution of parliament) were won by Zhirinovsky's party, communists were only 3rd. US never supported Zhirinovsky and he wasn't a communist.
I don't see how US could be blamed for anything that happened in 1993 because they were really trying to stop the crisis, but far-right nationalists (like Barkashov and Makashov) started military actions, like mayor's office assault and TV building attack.
This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
> So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?!
You should practice reading plain English.
> This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
Communists returning to power in Russia was an actual concern for the US foreign policy. For example it is unclear if Yeltsin fairly won against Zyuganov in 1996. Even today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation polls around 20%. They are the largest opposition party. Although it is pretty obvious they are a fake Communist Party
You should practice reading plain English.
> This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
Communists returning to power in Russia was an actual concern for the US foreign policy. For example it is unclear if Yeltsin fairly won against Zyuganov in 1996. Even today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation polls around 20%. They are the largest opposition party. Although it is pretty obvious they are a fake Communist Party
You should study our history better - 1993 and 1996 were very different years, in 1993 communists lost elections to pro-Eltsin party and to LDPR (Zhirinovsky).
As a party they got only 12% seats and this had nothing to do with US at all.
Major problems with economy happened during 1994 (like famous black Tuesday) and communists became more popular, but they were not the same people who tried to start military coup in 1993 (Zyuganov was very much against any military actions).
In 1996 Zuyganov lost because Lieutenant General Lebed supported Eltsin, he was Berezovsky's creature and was much more "brutal" that Zyuganov (who was looking exactly as Soviet era nomenklatura) . I highly doubt that anyone in US gave this idea to Berezovsky, because people in US had very little understating what rural Russians wanted to see and hear.
Major problems with economy happened during 1994 (like famous black Tuesday) and communists became more popular, but they were not the same people who tried to start military coup in 1993 (Zyuganov was very much against any military actions).
In 1996 Zuyganov lost because Lieutenant General Lebed supported Eltsin, he was Berezovsky's creature and was much more "brutal" that Zyuganov (who was looking exactly as Soviet era nomenklatura) . I highly doubt that anyone in US gave this idea to Berezovsky, because people in US had very little understating what rural Russians wanted to see and hear.
> You should study our history better
In 1993 Yeltsin tried to disolve the parliament without a legal basis in the Russian constitution. He did this to push through a new constitution which granted the president far reaching powers (hello Putin). In other words, he commited a coup. Every Western history book will tell you that the West supported him and that it would have been impossible for him to succeed without Western support, which is only logical because the coup happened in order to fasten Russia's transition to a Western-style market economy. At the time communists in Russia were extremely disorganised but the nation began to realize that they were sold a turd with the collapse of planned economy and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Grass root communists supported the parliament and in Moscow took to street action in much the same way that Nazi groups like Right Sector did during Maidan. Russia also had Nazis supporting the parliament (eg. National Bolsheviks ... Commie Nazis like in the Simpsons) but in the end who the US supports in ex-USSR will determine the success or failure of the coup and/or acceptability of using heavy handed methods of suppression. And dont worry, if you get confused about Nazis as your comrades, the US will also help you decide which Nazis/Jihadists/Nationalists/Terrorists are good and which are bad. So I guess that maybe you should study the history of foreign intervention in your country better.
In 1993 Yeltsin tried to disolve the parliament without a legal basis in the Russian constitution. He did this to push through a new constitution which granted the president far reaching powers (hello Putin). In other words, he commited a coup. Every Western history book will tell you that the West supported him and that it would have been impossible for him to succeed without Western support, which is only logical because the coup happened in order to fasten Russia's transition to a Western-style market economy. At the time communists in Russia were extremely disorganised but the nation began to realize that they were sold a turd with the collapse of planned economy and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Grass root communists supported the parliament and in Moscow took to street action in much the same way that Nazi groups like Right Sector did during Maidan. Russia also had Nazis supporting the parliament (eg. National Bolsheviks ... Commie Nazis like in the Simpsons) but in the end who the US supports in ex-USSR will determine the success or failure of the coup and/or acceptability of using heavy handed methods of suppression. And dont worry, if you get confused about Nazis as your comrades, the US will also help you decide which Nazis/Jihadists/Nationalists/Terrorists are good and which are bad. So I guess that maybe you should study the history of foreign intervention in your country better.
If you want Americans to run your country and be responsible for everything that happens there, then start by flying Stars and Stripes over the Kremlin.
Yeah, ok, so just the basic "America bad," view of things.
But bombing Serbia was a good thing, they were having a happy little genocide going and the US interfered. Similarly, the recognition of Kosovo is good in that context. Why are those in the list?
Both are illegal under international law
So is genocide.
There were certainly war crimes in Kosovo committed by both the Albanian and Serbian sides [0], but legally none of it is genocide.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
> It is also worth stating that the US set the precedent [in post-Cold War era - Edit] for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit. Some examples include:
Wow that is amazing considering the history of the country you're attempting to support here. None of this is a precedent, the Russians/USSR did it all way before any of this even happened.
> Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
I think you will find that it was Putins ambitions for imperialism that was the final straw in Putins actions.
Wow that is amazing considering the history of the country you're attempting to support here. None of this is a precedent, the Russians/USSR did it all way before any of this even happened.
> Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
I think you will find that it was Putins ambitions for imperialism that was the final straw in Putins actions.
Russia was never an ally, at best was a frenemy.
Quote: "On the summit’s first day, Gorbachev lamented the sad state of his economy and ..."
Communist economy was a bankrupt one, based on pillaging, not by producing anything new and good. Their "golden" years, of 50's and 60's was based on actually pillaging all the Eastern Bloc countries and leave them poorer. In every single country the USSR imposed an export-import type of firms, that "imported" Russian stuff, old and outdated from the 20's and 30's which were valued like they were the latest and greatest and exported that country best resource (be it gold, oil or grain). Once those resources were pillaged so the USSR economic decline started.
For more than 4 decades this was slavery with extra steps. So yeah, the Russians are hated by every single former Eastern Bloc country, because we did not forget their heavy boot throughout of "red enlightenment" era.
Quote: "On the summit’s first day, Gorbachev lamented the sad state of his economy and ..."
Communist economy was a bankrupt one, based on pillaging, not by producing anything new and good. Their "golden" years, of 50's and 60's was based on actually pillaging all the Eastern Bloc countries and leave them poorer. In every single country the USSR imposed an export-import type of firms, that "imported" Russian stuff, old and outdated from the 20's and 30's which were valued like they were the latest and greatest and exported that country best resource (be it gold, oil or grain). Once those resources were pillaged so the USSR economic decline started.
For more than 4 decades this was slavery with extra steps. So yeah, the Russians are hated by every single former Eastern Bloc country, because we did not forget their heavy boot throughout of "red enlightenment" era.
They have never been Allies. They just had aligned goals for a while.
Isn't that broadly what allies means in geopolitics? Not many relationships are considered allies where one or both sides are going against their own interests, at least in theory?
I get what you mean, but in this case, I'd ask under what circumstances Russia would come to the defense of the US. NATO is an alliance of allies in that sense.
Russia supported the US after the 9/11 attack.
There is probably some degree of aliterative appeal in 'ally to adversary'. But they were viewed as at least neutral in the 90s.
Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.
Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.
Once Russian laughing gas stops flowing, things turn out to be really grim actually. The entire Germano-Russian Stasi-KGB swamp pulls bodies like a fierce deity.
I see Ruzzian apologists are in force here, deploying ROCKWELL WHATABOUTER 9000 at full power. Imagine employing an "imperialist" label in attempt to defend Ruzzia in 2023, lol. I wonder if they believe the stuff they write or is it just a mega prank which got out of hand.
I've yet to see any evidence that they were ever an ally. It is true that they went from Soviet communism to whatever half-assed dictatorship/oligarchy they have now, that change was real. But it was the same people who were our enemies, draped in different clothing... why would they have the warm fuzzies for us?
Maybe if Clinton hadn't fucked up and had done a Marshall Plan for Russia, thing would be different.
Maybe if Clinton hadn't fucked up and had done a Marshall Plan for Russia, thing would be different.
'F*cked up???'
"Helped deactivate 5,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads, over 600 missile launchers (including over 360 ICBM silos), over 540 ICBMs and SLBMs, 64 heavy bombers and 15 missile submarines through U.S.-Russian cooperative threat reduction programs. The Clinton Administration also worked with Russia to ensure successful denuclearization efforts in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan; 3,300 nuclear warheads were moved to Russia and placed in storage. And today, no Russian nuclear weapons are targeted at an American city."
"Prevented the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from Russia through the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI), complementing and reinforcing other nonproliferation efforts, such as in 1995, when Russia agreed to forego sales of cryogenic rocket engines to India. The Clinton Administration also provided critical support to safeguard fissile material that was not properly stored or protected. A June 2000 agreement between President Clinton and President Putin provides for the safe, transparent and irreversible destruction of 68 metric tons of Russian and American (34 tons each) weapons grade plutonium - enough plutonium to make thousands of nuclear weapons."
"Promoted regional security and integration by strengthening the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the New Independent States. The Clinton Administration also sought to promote Russia's integration with the new Europe and its participation in institutions such as the G-8. Russia withdrew its troops from the Baltic states and Central Europe. Russia reaffirmed the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine as part of the landmark 1994 U.S.-Ukrainian-Russian agreement on post-Soviet denuclearization. Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, codifying a cooperative relationship with NATO, despite Russian objections to NATO enlargement. For the first time since World War II, Russian and American troops serve side by side in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Russian diplomacy was critically important during the Kosovo conflict. "
And much more.. --> https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-...
"Helped deactivate 5,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads, over 600 missile launchers (including over 360 ICBM silos), over 540 ICBMs and SLBMs, 64 heavy bombers and 15 missile submarines through U.S.-Russian cooperative threat reduction programs. The Clinton Administration also worked with Russia to ensure successful denuclearization efforts in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan; 3,300 nuclear warheads were moved to Russia and placed in storage. And today, no Russian nuclear weapons are targeted at an American city."
"Prevented the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from Russia through the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI), complementing and reinforcing other nonproliferation efforts, such as in 1995, when Russia agreed to forego sales of cryogenic rocket engines to India. The Clinton Administration also provided critical support to safeguard fissile material that was not properly stored or protected. A June 2000 agreement between President Clinton and President Putin provides for the safe, transparent and irreversible destruction of 68 metric tons of Russian and American (34 tons each) weapons grade plutonium - enough plutonium to make thousands of nuclear weapons."
"Promoted regional security and integration by strengthening the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the New Independent States. The Clinton Administration also sought to promote Russia's integration with the new Europe and its participation in institutions such as the G-8. Russia withdrew its troops from the Baltic states and Central Europe. Russia reaffirmed the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine as part of the landmark 1994 U.S.-Ukrainian-Russian agreement on post-Soviet denuclearization. Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, codifying a cooperative relationship with NATO, despite Russian objections to NATO enlargement. For the first time since World War II, Russian and American troops serve side by side in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Russian diplomacy was critically important during the Kosovo conflict. "
And much more.. --> https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-...
> And today, no Russian nuclear weapons are targeted at an American city
>> Today, under NATO’s nuclear sharing program, the remaining bombs complement the alliance’s collective security deterrent against threats, principally Russia.
https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons...
>> Today, under NATO’s nuclear sharing program, the remaining bombs complement the alliance’s collective security deterrent against threats, principally Russia.
https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons...
> And today, no Russian nuclear weapons are targeted at an American city.
That's such an odd statement for the White House to make. I have to assume that they meant that on a political level. Nobody was interested in MAD anymore at the time and nuclear weapons suddenly felt like relics of a bygone era. It's not like they went to every installation and removed the targeting data in whatever form.
That's such an odd statement for the White House to make. I have to assume that they meant that on a political level. Nobody was interested in MAD anymore at the time and nuclear weapons suddenly felt like relics of a bygone era. It's not like they went to every installation and removed the targeting data in whatever form.
> Helped deactivate 5,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads
You mean the ones in Ukraine that, were they still there would act as a deterrent to the invasion?
You mean the ones in Ukraine that, were they still there would act as a deterrent to the invasion?
What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan?
I don’t think many Americans realize how tenuous the hold on power Russian politicians was in the 1990s.
I don’t think many Americans realize how tenuous the hold on power Russian politicians was in the 1990s.
> What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan?
Free shit.
Free shit.
Would the American voters have gone with that though ???.
I think it is worth asking questions from the Realpolitik [0] school. For example, what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena? Its military? Well, besides nukes and subs, not really. Its hold on natural resources like fresh water, energy, forests, etc? I think this is a far more interesting aspect. Even if Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government, what would it mean for the US to have a powerful independent Russia as a competitor in a world where necessary natural resources are becoming more and more scarce?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Russia still operates like an empire; Moscow pulls wealth and troops in from its periphery to its centre. The people getting rich off Russian resources aren’t—to my knowledge—Siberian. They’re tIt is uniquely difficult to imagine “Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government” in its current configuration.
How does that answer the question posed?
> How does that answer the question posed?
It is difficult to see a stable, liberal Russian democracy that America can and should respect without either changing its borders or massively empowering its non-ethnic Russians and peripheral regions. That’s the sort of power and wealth transfer that usually takes civil war or unconditional surrender to achieve.
It is difficult to see a stable, liberal Russian democracy that America can and should respect without either changing its borders or massively empowering its non-ethnic Russians and peripheral regions. That’s the sort of power and wealth transfer that usually takes civil war or unconditional surrender to achieve.
The Commonwealth of Independent States, thats what it looks like.
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/CIS-map.htm
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/CIS-map.htm
> massively empowering its non-ethnic [Anglo-American edit] and peripheral regions
Like in the US and UK and Australia and New Zealand and Canada?
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
Over 14% of Texans live in poverty, and moreover, "twenty-three percent of all persons in the Texas-Mexico border counties are living under the Federal Poverty Line, and 25 percent of persons in the border counties lack health insurance." [0]
[0] https://www.dshs.texas.gov/hiv-std-program/hiv-dashboard/tex...
Like in the US and UK and Australia and New Zealand and Canada?
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
Over 14% of Texans live in poverty, and moreover, "twenty-three percent of all persons in the Texas-Mexico border counties are living under the Federal Poverty Line, and 25 percent of persons in the border counties lack health insurance." [0]
[0] https://www.dshs.texas.gov/hiv-std-program/hiv-dashboard/tex...
US "poverty" doesn't look anything like global poverty. How many of that 14% in TX have access to a flushing toilet, clean water, food, shelter and a smartphone. Take all those people out of that 14% and willing to bet it's 1% and that's on the high side. They would be considered very well off in many regions on the planet.
Most important, the US federal poverty level of $14.5k is 2.5x the Russian median income.
Also, the Russian poverty rate is 12%. The poverty level is $2200.
Also, the Russian poverty rate is 12%. The poverty level is $2200.
Good point. I have traveled all the way around this planet. I know what real poverty looks like and it doesn't look like anything going on in TX or the US period. I would gladly accept being in poverty in the US compared to those places. I would be jumping for joy to be honest. Just living here you hit the jackpot.
Im pretty sure it is much better to be poor in a country with a functioning social safety net
> I would be jumping for joy to be honest. Just living here you hit the jackpot.
Lol. Keep this comming please
> I would be jumping for joy to be honest. Just living here you hit the jackpot.
Lol. Keep this comming please
lol ok
> Like in the US and UK and Australia and New Zealand and Canada?
On the peripheral front, absolutely. Texans and Alaskans are rich and powerful off their oil, and have the power to tell Washington to go screw itself in major respects. (Similar for Albertans.)
Ethnic tensions are more complex, and on this unexpectedly Putin represents the liberal front, but both American tribes and Canadian First Nations have more legal autonomy than e.g. Siberia. (Chechnya being an unfortunate model exception.)
In the end, China may succeed where America failed. Where America saw a potential democracy, Beijing sees a spigot of resources with a contained military with which Moscow cannot create trouble outside its own borders. That may be the least-worst solution for the time being.
EDIT: Yes, Texas isn’t a utopia. No, this isn’t evidence of Washington having an imperial relationship with Austin. There are disagreements, of course, but both sides can and do force the other to back down.
On the peripheral front, absolutely. Texans and Alaskans are rich and powerful off their oil, and have the power to tell Washington to go screw itself in major respects. (Similar for Albertans.)
Ethnic tensions are more complex, and on this unexpectedly Putin represents the liberal front, but both American tribes and Canadian First Nations have more legal autonomy than e.g. Siberia. (Chechnya being an unfortunate model exception.)
In the end, China may succeed where America failed. Where America saw a potential democracy, Beijing sees a spigot of resources with a contained military with which Moscow cannot create trouble outside its own borders. That may be the least-worst solution for the time being.
EDIT: Yes, Texas isn’t a utopia. No, this isn’t evidence of Washington having an imperial relationship with Austin. There are disagreements, of course, but both sides can and do force the other to back down.
You might learn something if you read a bit about slavery, racism, civil rights, dispossesion and genocide of native people, stolen generations, zoos containing native African people, colonialism, even equal rights for women. It might surprise you that Russia and especially the USSR did none of those things. If you want to equate Russia to USSR then it is also worth pointing out that no country did more to promote national liberation movements of people oppressed by Western imperialism than the former USSR. Funny that without USSR and Leninist ideology about rights of nations to self determination there wouldn't even be countries like Ukraine
You might learn something
You might too, if you'd stop lashing out strangers like this.
It might surprise you that Russia and especially the USSR did none of those things.
Please -- don't bother. We all know exactly what went down in both the Tsarist and Soviet empires, and when.
You might too, if you'd stop lashing out strangers like this.
It might surprise you that Russia and especially the USSR did none of those things.
Please -- don't bother. We all know exactly what went down in both the Tsarist and Soviet empires, and when.
I don't think you are remotely aware of the influence Soviet Union had on the anti-colonial struggle and the eventual existance of many countries [0] [1].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
The emergence of some of the planet's most awful and long-lived dictatorships, you mean. Which completely betrayed the national liberation struggles from which they emerged.
I suggest you try visiting some of these countries sometime. Or at least talk a few people who actually grew up there. You might learn something.
I suggest you try visiting some of these countries sometime. Or at least talk a few people who actually grew up there. You might learn something.
So, for example, I grew up in a place that would never have gotten rid of Nazism had it not been for the Soviet Union. Sure we had a dictatorship afterwards and life was hard in a lot of ways, but it was nothing like what you were probably told and definitely an improvement on what was there before that system came
Nothing like what you were probably told
Hmm -- this really is quite a presumptuous (and basically highly obnoxious) attitude to take. But if you want to go on believing that people who don't echo the same set of coded beliefs as yourself -- do so because they are unread, have no direct knowledge of these countries, are brainwashed by the media or the education system or whatever -- that's up to you.
A place that would never have gotten rid of Nazism had it not been for the Soviet Union.
"Never" is rather doubtful, and bordering on science fiction (given what we know about unstable the Reich was in reality). The "hero" view of the Soviets' allegedly overwhelming contribution to overall war effort is also not something that follows from any balanced view of the historical record.
But what we do know from the historical record -- is that most of these places likely never would have been invaded in the first place, had Stalin not greenlighted Hitler's plans via a certain famous agreement in 1939.
Hmm -- this really is quite a presumptuous (and basically highly obnoxious) attitude to take. But if you want to go on believing that people who don't echo the same set of coded beliefs as yourself -- do so because they are unread, have no direct knowledge of these countries, are brainwashed by the media or the education system or whatever -- that's up to you.
A place that would never have gotten rid of Nazism had it not been for the Soviet Union.
"Never" is rather doubtful, and bordering on science fiction (given what we know about unstable the Reich was in reality). The "hero" view of the Soviets' allegedly overwhelming contribution to overall war effort is also not something that follows from any balanced view of the historical record.
But what we do know from the historical record -- is that most of these places likely never would have been invaded in the first place, had Stalin not greenlighted Hitler's plans via a certain famous agreement in 1939.
> It might surprise you that Russia and especially the USSR did none of those things.
I can remember no less than five different genocides in Russia just off the top of my head. As for civil rights, these are being rolled back at an amazing speed.
I can remember no less than five different genocides in Russia just off the top of my head. As for civil rights, these are being rolled back at an amazing speed.
[deleted]
Even scarier for Americans and their Chinese debt-holders, what would a world be like with Russia and Europe united sufficiently well, economically and otherwise, that Schengen could extend from Brussels to Anadyr ..
This would create an economic super-bloc that even China could not confront.
I think that is the real threat to American hegemony: Europe and Russia, getting along. It'd be awesome, but not so much in Washington DC ..
This would create an economic super-bloc that even China could not confront.
I think that is the real threat to American hegemony: Europe and Russia, getting along. It'd be awesome, but not so much in Washington DC ..
Well Putin has destroyed this possibility for the next ~30 years. (Also the majority of Russians, who supported an invasion against an independent country and millions of its people.)
If Putin is taken out by his own people, it could happen sooner ..
I don't think that Russia invading Ukraine was in the air, Russian people were requiring it, it made any geopolitical sense etc. I think it happened because of Putin. But this is just an uneducated guess, I am not really involved in the topic.
The subject of the genocide of Russian-speaking Ukrainians is not one that most Westerners are prepared to confront. Well, we hardly are willing to discuss our own participation in genocide (Yemen), so that's hardly surprising.
But rest assured, Russians have been concerned about it for years. It is a thing for them. They know what our armed forces have been doing, even if we don't ..
But rest assured, Russians have been concerned about it for years. It is a thing for them. They know what our armed forces have been doing, even if we don't ..
> what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena?
Could it just be inertia of thinking from the Cold War? The USSR was known to be powerful, and Russia is kinda the USSR, so it's assumed Russia has to be kinda powerful.
It's going to be interesting to observe how will Russian standing in the world change, now that the war is revealing that the Tsar has no clothes.
Could it just be inertia of thinking from the Cold War? The USSR was known to be powerful, and Russia is kinda the USSR, so it's assumed Russia has to be kinda powerful.
It's going to be interesting to observe how will Russian standing in the world change, now that the war is revealing that the Tsar has no clothes.
The asset stripping and oligarchisarion we permitted in the early 90s isn’t quite the stuff of the Treaty of Versailles. But it certainly rhymes in that a vanquished power laid prostrate was left to the vultures.