Has The West Lost Russia ?
Today in The Moscow Times
Author Mr. Gordon M. Hahn draws a vague conclusion as if we have nearly forgotten a previous Super Power and arch rival. Have we ? Some good analysis and even intriguing (although much assumed) ‘what ifs’.
Most of his data regarding NATO support and 'Baltic bashing' is way off (troop levels, etc), but does try and make a point. What if Russia joined the coalition forces in at least Afghanistan? Hell, most of the UXO there are (ahem) USSR’s finest and now IED materials. A tad long-winded, but worth a quick read.
Quote:
These are the bitter fruits of the West's -- and in particular the United States' -- mistaken policies toward Russia since the end of the Cold War. Instead of treating Moscow magnanimously, as historian Richard Pipes once urged, the West declared victory.
The resumption of long-range strategic bomber flights that will patrol areas bordering European and U.S. airspace. In short, Russia is back as a global player, and it is no longer a starry-eyed admirer of the United States.
The cost of NATO expansion is that Russia has been lost in the medium term -- and perhaps in the long term as well -- as a powerful, committed democracy and Western ally. Moreover, the West has pushed Russia closer to China and Iran.
If these are the costs of NATO expansion, what are the advantages? Few, if any. The alliance received from its new member states: a few thousand additional troops that are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, a three-jet Latvian air force and five Estonian nurses. Compare these benefits to Russia's vast military and intelligence resources and experience -- particularly in Afghanistan. Moreover, Moscow has helped to track down global jihadists, prevent the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction and reconstruct Afghanistan. As a true ally, Russia could contribute much more to the Western alliance than the small new NATO members.
All opinion polls now show that a plurality or majority of Russians regard the United States as the greatest threat to Russia and the world. Putin has repeatedly decried the U.S. impetus for a "unipolar" international structure -- which is to say, global hegemony.
The Russian elite's consensus is even harsher. Alexander Solzhenitsyn recently said the United States seeks to encircle and weaken Russia. This statement is highly symbolic, coming from the esteemed writer who once took refuge in the United States as a political refugee from the Soviet state. It also underscores how cold U.S.-Russian relations have become.
One hopes the next U.S. administration will not repeat Clinton and Bush's mistakes of insulting and underestimating Moscow. Even in the best of circumstances, the next U.S. president and his or her Western allies will face the daunting task of piercing through the unfortunate and unforgiving perceptual lens through which resurgent Moscow views the West, especially Washington.
More at the link...
Anybody Read Dmitry Medvedev in the Early Bird?
http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080827625352.html
Here's a quote from the President of the Russian Federation -
Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.
"complicity of the US and some other NATO members" = he believes the US and NATO are already actively working against Russian interests in their backyard.
This will only spiral into more harsh words from pundits in the West until the next US Administration sorts itself out and plots a policy to deal with Russia. It might be pretty late at that point.
UK Foriegn Minister takes hardline
Well if you thought Western Europe was on the sidelines check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7583486.stm
Yes, a statement issued during a visit to Ukraine and the main BBC radio 4 evening news referred to fears over the Crimea - with the naval base and Russian population (incidentally far smaller than in the USSR era).
A BBC reporter on the Crimea issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7583810.stm
I am not sure if Russia is "lost" but some are certainly "stirring" the mix well.
davidbfpo
Mostly true -- and mostly not terribly relevant...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kitsune
That is not over-simplified but simply wrong - it is astonishing where this myth comes from in the first place... Russia is and was for centuries an empire in the truest sense of the word, and Russians took and take pride in the size of this empire and the number of peoples they dominate.
True; they also play for sympathy and blatantly take a xenophobic approach to most everything. In that, they bear great similarity to most major nations. Doesn't pass the "so what?" test...
Quote:
...After WWII, Germany lost another quarter of its territory, around 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, with somewhere between 1 and 2 million of them being killed (while America, the alleged eternal defender of the oppressed and the only nation with nuclear bombs at the time, stood idly by), the rest was divided up between the victors and even those parts were not allowed full souvereignity until reunification in the early nineties. And yet no one was worried that the Germans could feel offended. Why is that?
That was, I suspect due to hard feeling built up against Germany from 1939 until 1945 (whose fault was that?) and the fact that the World was exhausted and wasn't prepared to start yet another large war.
Quote:
Ah yes. It was because of Hitler and the Nazis, right? Well, was Stalin and the Soviets really so much better? Otherwise Americans should actually feel more sympathetic to Germany than to Russia, or so one should assume. Germany is a West European country, after all, and more Americans are from German heritage than from any other single nation. But, out of some reason, a Germany being crushed and humiliated to the bone causes less compassion than when Russia has to accept that it isn't a superpower equal to the USA.
If there's a great deal of compassion for Russia here in the US, I wish you'd tell me where to find it. Outside of the so-called and self styled liberal elite and the left leaning media and entertainment types who never saw a Socialistic effort they couldn't apologize for, there's virtually no sympathy here for Russia. The truly incompetent and pathetic American media gives those outside the US a very inaccurate picture of the US and its beliefs.
Quote:
Now the Russians have to live with only the bit of land that has been left to them after the collapse of the Sovietunion (which is only more than any other country in the world has, oh my)...with Moscow's recognition of the two provinces as souvereign states, make it clear that they do not intend to leave. All perfectly understandable.
Is it actually known that, when Germany embarked on a similar course of action in 1939, this caused the Second World War? (Naturally there were differences, two of them being that the minorities in question back then were ethnical Germans, while South Ossetians and Abchasians are not ethnical Russians, another being that back then Russia aka the Sovietunion supported the German invasion after having made a deal that it would get the eastern half of invaded Poland)...
That was then, this is now. Times and attitudes change. Not always for the better, either...
Quote:
That all is not to say that the West could not have done some things better with reagrds to Russia after the break-up of the Sovietunion. Especially America did behave very arrogantly with all the talk about "we won the Cold War". Also, the whole Kosovo matter was gravely mishandled and a far-reaching autonomy of that province would have been a fairer solution with regards to the Serbians (and the Russians in so far they have to do something with it) than a complete independence.
We can agree on all that.
Quote:
...The Iraq invasion was an act of hubris and the missile shield program in Eastern Europe a completely senseless provocation.
Disagree on the first, there's much more to it than that. Just as you suggest the west needs to takle a firm stand against Russia, the US should have taken a firm stand against provocations and attacks from the Middle East. We did not and are now paying the price for not having done so. On the second, possibly. I don't think it's senseless but it also has not been handled well IMO.
Quote:
...Western humiliations may have enhanced this behaviour a bit, but they have not caused it.
True.
Quote:
Medvedev said recently that Russia did not want a new Cold War, but that it would not fear it, either. This is exactly the attitude, which Europe and the US should have. After all, we know how the first one ended.
Makes sense to me.
Quote:
...I see nothing wrong with my assessment that the felt compassion with Germany was not overly large.
Nor do I. Nor am I inclined to be apologetic about it. The US' troubles here and there arouse little compassion in Germany or most anywhere, for that matter -- we aren't too popular around the world and it isn't Bush, that's been true for a couple of centuries and has grown in intensity since WW II. Nations do not have friends, they have interests. Lifes a bitch, then you die :D
Quote:
As far as the US was concerned, Germany received a mere 1.5 billion dollars in help via the Marshallplan - the least of the larger European nations. (Britain received the biggest portion of that help, followed by France and then Italy).
Well, $1.5B then is technically about $17.5B in 2006 dollars and when you factor in the extent of damage throughout Europe; the large number of people out of work (and thus startlingly low wages) and a few other factors, you get to a practical amount of about $30.0B in today's dollars; not a tremendous amount but a considerable sum to pour into a former major foe from a nation that had itself accrued a massive war debt. Has anyone else in history done that? I'm not sure what the fact that those who were more 'friendly' got more money and help than the former enemy did has to do with anything, seems logical to me. As for the patents and such -- lot of international, particularly European, precedent for that... :wry:
I wouldn't call you anti-American for citing any of that though I might suggest that you are speaking with an obvious and earned bias. :cool: