The myth of Russian humiliation

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw,

You missed the point. And that point is the importance of the word 'potential'. Since the nuances of history often escape you, I'm going to lay out in simple terms:

In 1991, there was the potential for Russian integration in the US-centric democratic-capitalist international model. This momentum actually carried through into the early years of the Putin administration as well. There was, as has now materialized, the potential also for an aspiritional nationalist-realist Russia as well. Unlike other states that experienced the 'shock therapy' of overnight transformation from command economies to free enterprise, the security institutions of Russia more or less remained intact even as the political institutions disappeared. And unsurprisingly, this institution collectively entrenched itself in the new way of doing business. They were helped in this matter because of the weakness of Yeltsin, who was like a tame and drunk Milosevic (remember, it was Yeltsin's agitation for an independent, nationalist Russia from the USSR that ended the possibilities of reforming or keeping the Union together the same way that Milosevic's Serbian nationalism destroyed Yugoslavia). In the early phases of the 'collapse', the full extent of it was not immediate evident. Initially, only the Baltic states wanted to exit the USSR, and the senior leaders in the other republics had planned to reform the Union Treaty and keep the rest of the state together. Between Yeltsin's agitation and the KGB coup attempt, that project failed.

Now, as I've explained to you before, the Soviet (and Russian Empire) state models were not based on the West's Westphalian model. An entirely different political tradition informs Russian political experience. That tradition is 'empire' - the domination of the periphery by the economic/political/military center. Historically, the 'center' was Moscow/St. Petersburg (the Russian core), with the periphery extending as far as Poland, Georgia, and Turkmenistan. Crimea for example had been a part of the Russian empire since the 1780s (that's over 200 years in case you didn't count).

So - that takes us to the continuity of history. When the Soviet Union collapsed and from it emerged 20+ new countries, this was not simply or only the end of a system of government or a particular state. It was also a rapid contraction of an empire that had stood for several centuries. When the state disappeared, the history did not, and neither did the embedded ideas and aspirations that were reinforced by that history. New systems, ways of thinking, and political relations were introduced. When one takes a long view of Russian history and also understands the historical Russian claim to great power status reaching as far back as Peter I, then yes, it is a 'humiliation'. It's like the host country of the World Cup failing miserably in competition.

And that takes us full circle to today. The risk aversion of states is affected by the difference(s) between their perceived and ascribed status. The Russian elite have for many centuries perceived Russia as a great power - the end of the USSR did not also end that perception; it offended it. Russia's ascribed status is no longer a superpower for all the reasons debated in this forum and elsewhere. It's that discrepency - the yearning to restore Russia's 'place' - that makes states less risk averse. And this has been evident in Russia's policies since Putin came to power. That's not surprising.

What's most interesting about state status, however, is that elites also tend to measure their current status with some mythologized height of power - in the Russian case, this would be the Soviet Union. So despite all the economic progress Russia has made between 1991 and 2014, it is still insufficient because it does not compare to how Russia's perceive the power and stability of the USSR (whatever the factual accuarcy of their perceptions). Now we can discuss all day long what you perceive to be the moral bankruptcy of Russia and Russians, but it won't do us any good in actually resolving the problem of a "revanchist, revisionist, disruptive" state.

And again AP you missed the actual meaning of the author's article.

1.you yourself voiced almost the same lines of Russian argumentation when the Crimea broke out ie oh it was NATO's fault for pushing up to Russian borders, oh we the West were interfering with Russia's own spheres of influence and on and on

Go back and reread some of your comments.

2. she was simply stating the same arguments that Russia made for their Crimea and Ukrainians invasions nothing more nothing less and then provided reasons that those Russian arguments were null and void.

AND AP--now after six months go back and see if Russia has made the exact same statements in say the last four months---absolutely not a single sentence has been repeated WHY--it was an excellently designed info war argument and you and a lot of the Western media bought into it

If you had spent some time here in Germany and especially Berlin up to the Wall coming down and if you had dealt with GDR refugees by the dozens from say 1975 until say until say roughly July 1989 you would have seen exactly what I stated and yet you missed the point.

Both the Soviet Empire and especially the GDR collapsed under the weight of their own internal contradictions especially around the concepts of economic development vs say an arms race ie the Soviets. If you had ever had the opportunity to speak for hours with some of the Soviet and or GDR business types ie economists you would have known that the entire system was just one great Ponzi scheme built on monthly faked production numbers delivered up the chain making everyone look great and when the crash came in Nov 1989--for example the entire GDR senior Communist leadership was actually stunned on just how bad their economy had been---just as I have told you here a number of times---Putin is in an "altered state of reality" as he truly is believing his own propaganda just as the Soviet leadership did and the GDR leadership did.

By late 1988, the younger generation in the GDR was no longer buying into the constant lies as they saw the reality day in and day out--and exactly the same developments were ongoing among the equally young Soviet youth--by the Wall the Soviets and the GDR had "lost" their youth generation ie the 16-25 year olds.

Regardless of what Russia thinks, acts or does, Russian leadership somehow just keeps on forgetting that a "true" superpower must have an equally superpower economy on which to build a superpower military and then to project that power. Russia to include the Soviet period was never an economic powerhouse---it was one massive house of cards built on corruption and lies and it still is today as the "new Russia"---the inherent Soviet style corruption has been at the lead in holding back a number of the former east bloc countries economically developing since 1991---ESPECIALLY the Ukraine.

In some aspects Obama recently hit it on the head with the comment "has anyone" in the world seen the world when confronted with a serious problem "call" on the Russians to deliver some sort of answer to the problem---ever wonder why AP?

Russia ie the former Soviet Union as I have stated for you a number of times is simply and has been simply a regional power just with the ability to push the button on nuclear weapons. Even under the Czars they were just a regional player in Europe.

You did take notice that Putin has expressly threatened the US with a nuclear war three times in the last six months.

And that is what the mark of a "great" leader or even better the mark of an individual who is "panicking" because his belief in the great Russian economy and it's oil/gas wealth has evaporated in what just a little over two months and it is sinking faster than it did in 1998.

So again as per the article that you somehow did not read---was Russia ever humiliated---her answer was no.

Did Russia "spin" the truth a big way?--heck yes it did six months ago and a lot of commenters and the western media bit it hard and swallowed it hook line and sinker.

That AP is exactly what info warfare is all about and Russia plays the game like a pro and we in the West should sit down and finally admit that we lost this particular "info war". We are not even in the same league.

AP just look how Russia is "spinning" the reality of one of their mini subs being cornered in Swedish waters---same old answer as for the last six months---"it ain't us".

First it was the Dutch and now a "lost Japanese mini sub from WW2". AND yet the emergency signal was sent in Russia to Kaliningrad and there are two mother ships hanging out 40 miles off the Swedish coast and Russia has yet to answer why they are there.

http://news.yahoo.com/submarine-hunt...122310593.html

And if it is forced to surface then the argument will be "their were on vacation and got lost" and ended up 30 miles from Stockholm. By the way European bloggers picked up on the story three days before the western media even took notice.

AND none of that was western caused humiliation for the Soviets and now Russia.

When will you finally state that even a regional power must at some point take responsibility for it's own actions just as a superpower sometimes has to do. and stop playing the "humiliation card".