Ukraine

[willmarsh3]

Re: Ukraine

What is ROTW? Rest of the world?

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

yeah

[George.]

Re: Ukraine

The idea that the ROTW owes Russia something, because the ROTW didn't pursue its own interest, is nonsensical. Bizarre.

Of course the ROTW doesn't owe Russia anything. That is not the point. The Allies didn't owe Germany anything in 1945 either. The rich don't owe anything to the poor, and when an earthquake wipes out Haiti nobody owes them any aid.

It is enlightened self-interest to offer assistance in all these cases, though.

[pandelume]

Re: Ukraine

What did we (Ronald Reagan) do to rebuild Russia after winning the Cold War? Why did we not learn the lesson from history that either we helped rebuild it as a modern democratic state, or the old forces would reassert themselves?

That. Only substitute "the West" for Ray-gun.

I hold the west responsible, but it was Reagan and the Republicans that took the victory lap.

The Cold War and America’s Delusion of Victory
By Odd Arne Westad
Aug. 28, 2017

As America entered a new century, its main aim should have been to bring other nations into the fold of international norms and the rule of law, especially as its own power diminishes. Instead, the United States did what declining superpowers often do: engage in futile, needless wars far from its borders, in which short-term security is mistaken for long-term strategic goals. The consequence is an America less prepared than it could have been to deal with the big challenges of the future: the rise of China and India, the transfer of economic power from West to East, and systemic challenges like climate change and disease epidemics.

If the United States won the Cold War but failed to capitalize on it, then the Soviet Union, or rather Russia, lost it, and lost it big. The collapse left Russians feeling déclassé and usurped. One day they had been the elite nation in a superpower union of republics. The next, they had neither purpose nor position. Materially, things were bad, too. Old people did not get their pensions. Some starved to death. Malnutrition and alcoholism shortened the average life span for a Russian man from nearly 65 in 1987 to less than 58 in 1994.

If many Russians felt robbed of a future, they were not wrong. Russia’s future was indeed stolen — by the privatization of Russian industry and of its natural resources. As the socialist state with its moribund economy was dismantled, a new oligarchy emerged from party institutions, planning bureaus and centers of science and technology and assumed ownership of Russia’s riches. Often, the new owners stripped these assets and closed down production. In a state in which unemployment had, officially at least, been nonexistent, the rate of joblessness rose through the 1990s to peak at 13 percent. All this happened while the West applauded Boris Yeltsin’s economic reforms.

In retrospect, the economic transition to capitalism was a catastrophe for most Russians. It is also clear that the West should have dealt with post-Cold War Russia better than it did. Both the West and Russia would have been considerably more secure today if the chance for Russia to join the European Union, and possibly even NATO, had at least been kept open in the 1990s.

Instead, their exclusion has given Russians the sense of being outcasts and victims — which, in turn, has given credence to embittered jingoists like President Vladimir Putin, who see all the disasters that have befallen the country over the past generation as an American plot to reduce and isolate it.

The posts and op-ed quoted above seem to be quite clear in laying the blame for Russia's development over the last ~30 years at the feet of the US or "the West". I think this is what Osborne Russell's last few posts are in response to. Russia (and the USSR) have long histories of imperial aspirations. The continuation of these aspirations today hasn't been caused by the US, and I suspect that it's wishful thinking to say that more active involvement in Russia's domestic politics in the 1990s would have expunged or even controlled these aspirations.

The US has done a bad job of showing international leadership and foresight in the intervening years, and has caused much suffering elsewhere to assuage our domestic angst. But I think the blame for Russia's current ambitions lies not with the US.

[skuthorp]

Re: Ukraine

The Russians eeem to still long for a Czar. Vlad is just the latest incarnation of that imperial dream. The myth of a strong man seems built into their psyche. The gangster culture there is likely encouraged by the state as an extension of their power..

[CWSmith]

Re: Ukraine

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

[StevenBauer]

Re: Ukraine

Jennifer Cohn is good. Her research on voting should be known by everyone. Here’s her Ukraine piece:

https://jennycohn1.medium.com/whats-all-the-fuss-about-ukraine-1ba8e53d99ee

[skuthorp]

Re: Ukraine

edited to say, faulty geography and the wrong sea!

But it's still a very big bite and may give Russia indigestion.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Ukraine

Of course the ROTW doesn't owe Russia anything. That is not the point. The Allies didn't owe Germany anything in 1945 either. The rich don't owe anything to the poor, and when an earthquake wipes out Haiti nobody owes them any aid.

It is enlightened self-interest to offer assistance in all these cases, though.

This argument of course avoids the issue of legal authority to do jack in Russia; and Russia's willingess to allow jack to be done; and where the money would come from. We're going to teach the heirs of Imperial Russia how to run their outfit, from Kamchatka to Bulgaria, and pay them to do it?

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Ukraine

Russia (and the USSR) have long histories of imperial aspirations. The continuation of these aspirations today hasn't been caused by the US, and I suspect that it's wishful thinking to say that more active involvement in Russia's domestic politics in the 1990s would have expunged or even controlled these aspirations.

Yep.

There is an Irish saying: if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Ukraine

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

Not yet. They can back off. Then it falls to the west to decide to allow the conquests in Ukraine and Georgia to stand. The west will dither and in a few years Russia can try again.

Someone pointed out that the latest caper has ironically brought NATO closer to encircling Russia than ever. Sooner or later the dithering will stop, and necessity will be recognized.

[Paul Pless]

Re: Ukraine

Someone pointed out that the latest caper has ironically brought NATO closer to encircling Russia than ever. Sooner or later the dithering will stop, and necessity will be recognized.

the real difference not being russia's actions
but the fact that biden is no trumpian stool pigeon for putin

[skuthorp]

Re: Ukraine

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

It's more can Putin afford to back off without losing face, but I doubt he will. And if he doesn't will there any european intervention? I doubt anyone will join in over Ukraine, but if Vlad judges then that europe is weak will the Baltic states be next? And would that trigger another european war?

[George.]

Re: Ukraine

The Russians eeem to still long for a Czar. Vlad is just the latest incarnation of that imperial dream. The myth of a strong man seems built into their psyche.

That may be part of it. Another part is that when they briefly had a liberal democracy in the 1990s it came with a side dish of unrestrained savage capitalism, delivered to them by Western institutions and consultants who were more focused on getting a slice of privatized assets than on establishing a well-regulated free market. The result was predictable: oligarchy and an atrocious disparity in wealth and income between the poor and the newly rich.

Yet another part was NATO expanding all the way to Russia's borders. The average Russian might ask: what is the purpose of NATO other than to oppose Russia?

Put those two together and you get support for someone who promises to fix it.

Putin's regime is a reaction to that.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Ukraine

Another part is that when they briefly had a liberal democracy in the 1990s it came with a side dish of unrestrained savage capitalism, delivered to them by Western institutions and consultants . . .

Delivered to them by themselves.