The myth of Russian humiliation

[OUTLAW 09]

Bob,

You bring up good points. I'd add that popular perceptions are important, even in quasi-dictatorships. A Levada Center poll recently stated that almost 80% of Russians view the West - particularly the U.S. and U.K - as enemies of Russia. Most recent research into the exercise of power evidences that even under conditions amounting to dictatorship, the complicitly of the population is essential to the functioning of the state. Also, regime type is important in affecting risk aversion in foreign policy, but at the same time, even the most stringent dictatorships are responsive to internal interests so the aggression of autocratic regimes is heavily qualified when compared to aggression by democratic regimes. How much of the narrative in Russia is directed by the Kremlin and how much of it is Kremlin opportunism playing on the ideological momentum of the population? Ultimately humiliation and fear are about perception of a state's status, and that is important in shaping how state's make decisions. Whatever the alarmists may state, Putin and his crew are, ultimately, human and subject to the same principles governing human behavior.

And again AP you simply do not get it based on this sentence you wrote:

Whatever the alarmists may state, Putin and his crew are, ultimately, human and subject to the same principles governing human behavior

Here is your core problem---ethno driven neo imperialism is all about emotions and driven by propaganda---also a trigger for human emotions otherwise propaganda will/would never work.

If Putin and his crew were in fact driven by human behavior then it would be far easier to determine just where he is headed---and right now his driving principles are not those of say European leaders or in fact the common man on the street in Paris. Why because we in the west took him at his word until the Crimea and failed to even take notice of the new Russian ethno defined and driven neo imperialism and the ever developing form of Russian "fascism".

The problem is that Putin as he has built his new ethno neo imperialism built it using the already existing Russian ultra nationalism ie fascism which appeals to a total different side of "human nature" being inherently racist in nature.

If as you write below you keep referring to "humiliation" and even Bob got into the same trend.

Just "how did Russia" get so paranoid since 1991--virtually all of Europe has effectively reduced their military since 1991 to virtually non existent, the US withdrew literally all of their ground combat power and reduced their air power to a minimum and that was for Iraq and AFG. So pray tell was the "threat" especially in light of the fact that NATO is a shadow of itself? AND Russia and Putin knows this simple fact.

SO again AP where was this supposedly Western threat to the security of Russia to come from?---what the German Army which has only currently in their inventory 221 tanks and 60 of them are in repair or say the Italian Army? or say the Estonian Army with a single active mechanized brigade and that is it say Holland?

Come on AP---just what was the "humiliation"---nothing more nothing less that an elegant info war myth to drive the west into believing the Russian claims that they had been the "victim" and were just "responding to protect their victimness".

And again I had asked you to reread recent Russian statements on the Ukraine since say September---have you seen written and or heard anywhere the Russian FM or Putin repeat the myths of "humiliation"---not a single word and or sentence has been lost on that "myth" and yet many in the west fell for it hook line and sinker---THAT was the reasoning behind the article actually. Why have they restrained themselves--because in fact the propaganda "myth" actually worked so therefore no further need to keep hammering the messaging that would be overkill and would have been seen as the propaganda it was.

This AP is what the European northern countries think right now about the Russian "humiliation" in light on this Russian leadership that is currently not reacting as normal sane thinking humans.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/31/d...cs-278694.html

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--see this is how the myths of Russia work.

Yesterday and today in Europe---massive headlines about cluster munitions being used by the Ukrainian Army against Donetsk civilians by the Russian Chapter of the Human Rights Watch who O have a good repo with especially those that worked in Iraq and at Fort Irwin.

BUT again released by the Russian chapter of HRW not the international headquarters.

BUT spread all over the major newspapers and western media---with the voice of the Ukrainian government not being heard that no they have never used the munitions.

THEN this on the blogging side THAT has not hit the attention of the western media.

#OSCE denies #HRW information on use of #cluster munitions by #Ukrainian army

Representatives of international... http://fb.me/1nCYNhGWO

SO AP--who do you believe---the military and civilian monitors on the ground in the Donetsk and tasked to report neutrally on anything and everything or the MOSCO chapter of the HRW in a country that has somehow forgotten to have HRW registered as a NGO and the disbanding their own human rights group that has a massive worldwide reputation for doing great work?

THAT my friend is how "myths" become reality in the world of propaganda.

And AP another current Russian "myth" no Russian sub in Swedish waters.

Russian vessel "Professor Logachev" approaching Sweden equipped with 'hangar for midget submarines'.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/rysk...r-sig-sverige/

AND the ultimate Russian "myth" --Gazprom delivers value for money gas pricing and is a true EU competitive company and deals correctly with all of their contracts.

Interfax today:
13:20 ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACCEPTS NAFTOGAZ SUIT ON INTERIM GAS PRICE - UKRAINIAN PM YATSENYUK

Note Russia is charging the Ukraine for undelivered gas volumes that in the contract is stated Ukraine must pay even if they do not take the gas.

[OUTLAW 09]

Again AP---here is the Russian FM "attempting" to redefine the "humiliation myth" in a totally new direction---this time "arguing" Russians actions in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine were based on "international laws"

Notice not a single mention of the Budapest Memorandum which had it's basis in international law.

Come on AP "just what existing international laws define Russians claims on Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

See AP just how propaganda created the "humiliation myth"?

RIA from today.

MOSCOW, October 22 (RIA Novosti) - The Ukrainian crisis is the direct result of the West's attempts to preserve lines of division in the Euro-Atlantic area, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday.

"The Ukrainian crisis is a direct consequence of the attempts of our Western colleagues again to preserve and move to the east the dividing lines in the Euro-Atlantic area," Lavrov said in a meeting with representatives of the Russian Youth Public Chamber.

According to the minister, Russia is not seeking confrontation with anyone else, but will defend its interests on the basis of international law.

"We will act as we think is right and fair on the basis of international law, which we respect," the minister added. "We believe that this is the best way to ensure the national interests of the Russian Federation," Lavrov stated.

In mid-April, Kiev launched a military operation against independence supporters in eastern Ukraine. The United States and the European Union have repeatedly accused Russia of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs and escalating the crisis, but Moscow has repeatedly denied these allegations. In the meantime, Russia has repeatedly expressed concern over NATO's increasing military presence close to its borders.

[Bob's World]

International law is so diluted by US actions in recent years claiming exceptions in the name of interests claimed and defined by us, that one would have a hard time finding a fair and honest judge who would not at least believe the Russians make a similar case.

These laws are more contracts between sovereign parties than binding codes anyway - and when parties act unchecked outside the terms of a contract they change the terms of the contract iaw said conduct.

[AmericanPride]

Here is your core problem---ethno driven neo imperialism is all about emotions and driven by propaganda

We've already had this conversation about your misuse of the term 'neo-imperialism'.

If Putin and his crew were in fact driven by human behavior then it would be far easier to determine just where he is headed---and right now his driving principles are not those of say European leaders or in fact the common man on the street in Paris.

What does the views and experiences of the 'common man on the street in Paris' have to do with Putin's own perceptions and decision-making?

Why because we in the west took him at his word until the Crimea and failed to even take notice of the new Russian ethno defined and driven neo imperialism and the ever developing form of Russian "fascism".

Actually the mainstream criticism of Washington policy towards Russia since 1991 has been that the U.S. not taken into account any of Russia's words, legitimate or not. The U.S. has more or less assumed that Russia is no longer a big deal. And, we've also already discussed your misuse of the term 'fascism'.

Playing fast and loose with the concepts doesn't help anyone, but I'm pretty sure you're not here to actually have a conversation about Russia.

So pray tell was the "threat" especially in light of the fact that NATO is a shadow of itself?

As I've already explained, it's about perception, and that perception is also within the context of historical continuity. I know, difficult concepts. World War II (you know, that conflict that killed up to 25 million Soviet people or 14% of the population) put Russian security paranoia into overdrive and it has not abated much since. It's called national or transgenerational trauma and it's deeply rooted in Russian foreign policy and national security. Combine that with the deficit between Russia's perceived and ascribed status and you have a reciepe for risk-taking in foreign policy.

Come on AP---just what was the "humiliation"---

Like neo-imperialism, fascism, and state risk-taking, I've also already answered this question.

"victim" and were just "responding to protect their victimness".

That's your interpretation. I've never used the word 'victim'. And that terminology doesn't provide any value-added to understanding Russia's motives.

This AP is what the European northern countries think right now about the Russian "humiliation" in light on this Russian leadership that is currently not reacting as normal sane thinking humans.

And I'll ask my question once again that you have repeatedly avoided: if Russian leadership is "not reacting as normal sane thinking humans" or if they are "irrational" and live in an "altered state of reality", how can you be confident that any Western response will produce the desired results in Russian behavior? You can't have it both ways: either Russia is a rational, predictable state and countermeasures can elicit a predictable response, or Russia is an irrational state and countermeasures will produce unpredictable responses.

[OUTLAW 09]

We've already had this conversation about your misuse of the term 'neo-imperialism'.



What does the views and experiences of the 'common man on the street in Paris' have to do with Putin's own perceptions and decision-making?



Actually the mainstream criticism of Washington policy towards Russia since 1991 has been that the U.S. not taken into account any of Russia's words, legitimate or not. The U.S. has more or less assumed that Russia is no longer a big deal. And, we've also already discussed your misuse of the term 'fascism'.

Playing fast and loose with the concepts doesn't help anyone, but I'm pretty sure you're not here to actually have a conversation about Russia.



As I've already explained, it's about perception, and that perception is also within the context of historical continuity. I know, difficult concepts. World War II (you know, that conflict that killed up to 25 million Soviet people or 14% of the population) put Russian security paranoia into overdrive and it has not abated much since. It's called national or transgenerational trauma and it's deeply rooted in Russian foreign policy and national security. Combine that with the deficit between Russia's perceived and ascribed status and you have a reciepe for risk-taking in foreign policy.



Like neo-imperialism, fascism, and state risk-taking, I've also already answered this question.



That's your interpretation. I've never used the word 'victim'. And that terminology doesn't provide any value-added to understanding Russia's motives.



And I'll ask my question once again that you have repeatedly avoided: if Russian leadership is "not reacting as normal sane thinking humans" or if they are "irrational" and live in an "altered state of reality", how can you be confident that any Western response will produce the desired results in Russian behavior? You can't have it both ways: either Russia is a rational, predictable state and countermeasures can elicit a predictable response, or Russia is an irrational state and countermeasures will produce unpredictable responses.

See again AP you cannot get the wording correct---in the world of international relations when a country uses the term "humiliation" the "presumption" is that the country is a "victim" of something---or has that not changed in the English language usage these days?

Secondly, really really go back and reread the article concerning the use of the word "humiliation".

She lists a number of "humiliation arguments" that Russia claims to be "aggrieved" on.

Then she takes each one of those "aggrieved complaints apart" and behold it is nothing more nothing less that a standard Russian "myth" used to push it's own geopolitical agenda.

Truly go back and reread then answer the authors arguments.

Thirdly--if you really think the sanctions, sinking oil price, and free falling Rubel has not reigned in nor gotten the attention of Putin and his advisory crew then absolutely nothing will.

If as you argue they are "rational thinking human beings"---then one would say totally defying the laws of economics in the face of a fully collapsing economy is intensely damaging to one's career if you are a leader of a "normal thinking" country.

That is another perfect example of the term you really hate to use "altered state of reality". So if they are not "rational thinking beings" THEN what is driving them to avoid being one?---ethno neo imperialism cloaked in the simple term fascism or DO you have an explanation for the eight Russian mercenary groups which are truly Russian fascists fighting in the Ukraine against from Russia alleged to be Ukrainian Nazi's?

Think about it.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---think about the term "Russian humiliation" for a moment.

Here are two further examples of Russian annexation moves which if one takes the "normal view that human beings act in normal fashions" goes completely against the view of "Russian humiliation" and towards Russian expansionism ie neo imperialism driven by ethnicity.

1. In addition to the annexation of the tiny Yaya Island located in the desolate Laptev Sea------in the Artic and never Russian territory and never "threatened by NATO moving eastwards since 1991"

2. Russia stated yesterday they are signing legal documents with the Georgian enclaves which are basically a half step away from total annexation and under Russian law lay the groundwork for total annexation---AND AP not a single peep from the west

And that is what "Russian humiliation" or simply Russian expansionism at work?

Oh--forgot -it was caused by NATO's eastward movements right?

[OUTLAW 09]

International law is so diluted by US actions in recent years claiming exceptions in the name of interests claimed and defined by us, that one would have a hard time finding a fair and honest judge who would not at least believe the Russians make a similar case.

These laws are more contracts between sovereign parties than binding codes anyway - and when parties act unchecked outside the terms of a contract they change the terms of the contract iaw said conduct.

One can argue all day long judicially---put it is always countered by reality on the ground as physical actions taken by any country regardless of ideology have always spoken louder than international laws/agreements regardless of actor and or actors involved.

This Russian FM statement sentence goes to the heart to the Russian info war and they have repeated it so often they actually believe it.

The United States and the European Union have repeatedly accused Russia of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs and escalating the crisis, but Moscow has repeatedly denied these allegations.

They never tire of stating we have done nothing inside the Ukraine---we do not provide materials and weapons, we do not provide actual troops and mercenaries, we did not shoot down MH17, we did not shell across our borders and our borders are secure--- thus we are the "aggrieved party" nothing more nothing less.

When a nation repeatedly is trapped in it's own "rationality" that it creates to explain it's actions and cannot turn loose of that "rationality" there will never be a political solution and the military solution is the only option.

Aggressive Russians in London demand Putin's war in Ukraine because "We, Russians are f...... oppressed in Latvia!"
http://totall.me/video/826509

When a country decides to define it's external actions on ethnicity and languages and has a finger on and threatens the use of nuclear weapons to back up that ethnicity claim then we might as well rewrite international affairs and state that all country borders world wide are fair game to be changed meaning the strongest neighbor rules---and that leads us where?

It leads us to this.......so does western media and western leaders openly ask themselves the following simple question---What the heck is a Russian uniformed and Ryssian Navy ID carrying Marine doing in eastern Ukraine when the Russian FM above stated "we are being wrongly accused by the West and we are not meddling"?

OR have they gotten so use to the Russian lies they simply go on with business as usual and think nothing of it as experience has shown them in the last six months nothing will change the Russian version of "reality"--not all the talking, not all the negotiations---only sanctions, sinking Ruble and oil prices BUT that does not even get the attention of Putin.

BREAKING In #Nikishyne detained #Russian marine fr #Novorossiysk
https://www.facebook.com/SecurSerUkr...49020428661290 …
pic.twitter.com/8enTNtEHwv

BREAKING #Ukraine army detained yesterday in #Nikishyne #Russian marine fr #Novorossiysk, army document ID #12910, born May 12 1983

BREAKING #Russian terrorists brought to #Telmanove 4 (2 wks ago) to 7 (per y'day) GRAD vehicles, dug in. Looking for crew, offer 5000UAH/mth

PM of Donetsk Republic prophecies battle for Sloviansk & Mariupol

Donetsk Forces Plan to Retake Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, Mariupol
http://en.ria.ru/world/20141023/1944...-Mariupol.html … via @ria_novosti

And we the West have the agreements Minsk 1 and 2 and claim things are "looking great"?

[AmericanPride]

AP---"Russian humiliation or no humiliation" some others see Russia as much as a threat as I do and I went through the Cold War here and thought in 1991 it was going to be a thing of the past.

Good for you. I don't think anyone on this board has stated that Russia is not a 'threat' to U.S. interests. The difference remains in the extent and causes of that threat.

I think you might agree with me for a moment that any leader of a country that is "rational thinking" in the face of a "free falling economy" WOULD in fact do everything possible to 'save" his or here country.

There are alot of tangled assumptions in that statement. 'Rational thinking' only means that there is a logical connection between motive, opportunity, and means. That's it. Now what we think is rational from an outsider's perspective for Russia's political elite will be different from what they determined to be rational from their point of view. Humans are also rationalizing - meaning that their decisions are shaped by previous decisions and their own perceptions. Not every decision is made on its own merits but is made within the continuity of all the decisions before it, starting with the anchoring positions and assumptions. This is why people "throw good money after bad" or "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Additionally, we also have to consider the consequences of collective and bureaucratic decision-making. There is a 'collective rationality' produced by the outcomes of internal debates and deliberations between key personalities and bureaucracies. Sometimes this 'collective rationality' generates sub-optimal outcomes when compared to the assumption of monolithic state decision-making. So the Putin administration may in fact be doing 'everything' they think possible to "save" the Russian economy.

BUT what if he or she takes a completely different stance---meaning a military geopolitical victory takes precedence over virtually everything else.

It depends how a "military geopolitical victory" fulfills the desired objectives of the Putin administration. It may be that the outcomes of such a victory (say, consolidation of state powers or control of the state by Putin and his allies) are more important to the decision-makers than the consequences, such as recession. Generally speaking, domestic interests trump international ones, and sometimes directly dictate foreign policy decisions. Even with the economic consequences, Putin has managed to consolidate state powers and sustain high public opinion, even for him. This probably reinforces Russia's intrasgience when it comes to Ukraine.

Now when a state is commited to a course of action, the issue becomes less about the course taken and more about the credibility of the state. One of your arguments is that Russia's actions have encouraged NATO solidarity, and is therefore 'irrational' since the assumption is that Russia wants to break NATO. That may be true. But it also may be true that the Russian elite on some level welcomes NATO's perception that Russia is a threat because it indicates that Russia is being taken seriously as a world power. Reversing course now would give credence to the argument that Russia is impotent.

SO AP---just what maneuver did the Russian soldier sgo missing on?

You ask these questions like I care about Russian propaganda.

If as you argue they are "rational thinking human beings"---then one would say totally defying the laws of economics in the face of a fully collapsing economy is intensely damaging to one's career if you are a leader of a "normal thinking" country.

First, to say that there are 'laws of economics' to be defied is absurd. There are causual relationships between inputs and outputs that sometimes hold true under some circumstances given specific conditions.

Second, Russia's economy is not 'fully collapsing'. It's heading towards recession. There is no way to predict how long the recession will last or the depth it will go.

And third, the recession may or may not be 'intensely damaging' to Putin. Political leaders have survived worse, even in reliably democratic countries. More likely, Putin will find a scapegoat to direct any public resentment - probably the West since the majority of Russians view the West as the enemy.

ethno neo imperialism cloaked in the simple term fascism or DO you have an explanation for the eight Russian mercenary groups which are truly Russian fascists fighting in the Ukraine against from Russia alleged to be Ukrainian Nazi's?

I've answered this question elsewhere already.

[OUTLAW 09]

And this is the eastern Ukrainian Russian mercenary response to the Russian claims of "humiliation".

So again just was that "humiliation"?

Press conference Donetsk: "Very soon we'll simply wipe ukraine from the political map of the world."
pic.twitter.com/Lk80yCnRRt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1lKv18Bw4k … 'We'll be retaking [#Ukraine's] #Sloviansk,#Kramatorsk,#Mariupol,' warlord #Zakharchenko says
pic.twitter.com/J1y0VEqgbL

Russia continues to obstruct expansion of OSCE mission on its border with Ukraine - @usosce
http://osce.usmission.gov/oct_22_14_press_release.html …
pic.twitter.com/NlyrXlELjD

[OUTLAW 09]

See again AP--absolutely not reading the Washington Post story that triggered the "humiliation" questions leads to many of your comments or lack of answers to many of my questions placed to you.

If you had read the article---then does the following resemble any form of Russian "humiliation"--especially since what the author wrote in her article has been repeated multiple times by Russia just before and right after the Crimea annexation and Putin's Duma speech.

BUT surprisingly Russia has not mentioned any of the same "humiliation" statements since Russian troops crossed into the Ukraine. interesting is it not?

But if you had really understood Putin and all of what he has stated/written since 2002 ---- the "humiliation" accusations are just another Russian effort to define what Putin's geopolitical goals are actually.

1. Putin wants the destruction of NATO thus no longer a perceived military threat to Russia
2. Putin wants the EU split from the US thus the total reduction of US influence in all of Europe
3. Putin wants the EU to be destroyed as an economic/legal power in Europe as he views western liberalism to be an evil thing for the Russian culture ie the EU general legal protection of homosexuals is a massive Russia dislike right now--down to refusing any mail coming into Russia from Finland if the stamp has a nude man on it

If you really took the time to analyze the macroeconomics of Russia's dislike of the EU Association agreements--you will be light years ahead in your thinking-ever wonder WHY?

WHY--because any country that has joined the EU must go through all of their own laws and reform them, cancel them and or rewrite them to match the standard EU legal/economic law requirements WHICH goes totally against Russian State owned enterprises and the Russian oligarchs. The matching of EU laws would effectively limit the Russia gas weapon currently being used by Putin.

Secondly it would force Russia to reign in their old line Soviet current corruption practices which led to the fortune that Putin himself hides.

For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland’s first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.

When the slow, cautious expansion eventually took place, constant efforts were made to reassure Russia. No NATO bases were placed in the new member states, and until 2013 no exercises were conducted there. A Russia-NATO agreement in 1997 promised no movement of nuclear installations. A NATO-Russia Council was set up in 2002. In response to Russian objections, Ukraine and Georgia were, in fact, denied NATO membership plans in 2008.

Meanwhile, not only was Russia not “humiliated” during this era, it was given de facto “great power” status, along with the Soviet seat on the U.N. Security Council and Soviet embassies. Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine’s borders. Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the Group of Eight — although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.

So AP get back to the actual articles' acutal assumption---there was no Russian "humiliation" which was the core argument presented to the West as the core reason for Russian annexation of the Crimea and the creation of "New Russia".