The myth of Russian humiliation

[OUTLAW 09]

Goes to the heart of the Washington Post "humiliation" article. Excert taken from the previously linked WSJ article.

Notice just how Russia starts their own internal "humiliation" myths and then direct them towards the West. That "drumbeat" is then passed via their social networks, and news media both inside Russia and world in general

The Russian conspiracy theory isn’t a new phenomenon. A senior Russian security official, Nikolai Patrushev, rehearsed a couple of historical theories in a recent interview with state media: that the U.S. lured the Soviet Union into its disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and that Washington manipulated the collapse in oil prices in the 1980s to destroy the Soviet Union. Likewise, the new sanctions against Russia are seen as a U.S. effort to bring about regime-change in Russia

Notice the authors use of the following sentence......rehearsed a couple of historical theories in a recent interview AND again from the Washington Post article the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders and western violations of "international law" are perfect examples of such "rehearsal of historical theories".

[OUTLAW 09]

For those commenters who buy into the various Russian "humiliation myths" this should actually end the discussion on NATO alleged "eastward expansion".

Gorbachev Confirms There Was No NATO 'Non-Expansion' Pledge

23:15 (GMT)

Russia Behind the Headlines, an English-language news site sponsored by the state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta, ran an interview with the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in which he refutes a common Kremlin propaganda claim about NATO expansion.

Taking their cue from Russian leaders, the pro-Kremlin propaganda outlet globalresearch.ca (Centre for Research on Globalization) has repeatedly published claims that Western leaders "lied" about plans for NATO, and even historians have interpreted Gorbachev's own memoirs to imply the West broke its promise to Moscow. Putin even blamed the forcible annexation of the Crimea on "NATO enlargement."

This interview shows why we're fortunate such a historical actor is still alive to explain what happened when the Berlin wall fell 25 years ago.

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact was terminated in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context, mentioned in our question. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia did not object at the beginning.

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are obeyed.

The idea of "NATO expansion" as a trigger for Russian aggression is a popular one for analysts keen to blame the West for the war in Ukraine, explain Russian alienation, claim the US has treated Russia like a loser, or find something the West can change instead of demanding change from Moscow.

Gorbachev's remarks make it clear that there weren't promises made, that some aspects of the discussion only concerned Germany, and that at best we can really only argue about the violation of "a spirit" not a letter.

Anna Applebaum dispenses with these claims in a piece titled "The Myth of Russian Humiliation" in the Washington Post in which she covers the joining of both EU and NATO by Central and East European nations:

These two “expansions,” which were parallel but not identical (some countries are members of one organization but not the other), were transformative because they were not direct leaps, as the word “expansion” implies, but slow negotiations. Before joining NATO, each country had to establish civilian control of its army. Before joining the European Union, each adopted laws on trade, judiciary, human rights. As a result, they became democracies. This was “democracy promotion” working as it never has before or since.

But times change, and the miraculous transformation of a historically unstable region became a humdrum reality. Instead of celebrating this achievement on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is now fashionable to opine that this expansion, and of NATO in particular, was mistaken. This project is incorrectly “remembered” as the result of American “triumphalism” that somehow humiliated Russia by bringing Western institutions into its rickety neighborhood. This thesis is usually based on revisionist history promoted by the current Russian regime — and it is wrong.

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.

Indeed, Russia would be hard put to explain why the decision from the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, where Georgia and Ukraine were not given invitations or Membership Action Plan, due to opposition from Russia, Germany and France, and a decision by President Barack Obama not to deploy missiles in Czech Republic and Poland, prior to the reset, could somehow explain aggression against Ukraine 6 years later in 2014.

[OUTLAW 09]

Strong indicators that Russia wants via their mercenaries to disrupt the Ukrainian 26 Oct elections as Putin cannot allow it to be an example of a former Soviet style government actually pulling off fairly democratic elections after a fair, open, and relatively peaceful election campaigning.

Still say that one of the underlying fears that is driving Putin is to eliminate the success by the people during the Maidan as an example for the Russian population as a whole.

BREAKING Per credible sources #Russian terrorists in #Donetsk received strict order to take #DonetskAirport whatever the cost before Oct 26.

On October 23 news came #Russian terrorists in #Donetsk must vacate all taken hospital beds by Oct 26 the latest. Smth is waiting to happen.

Right now news on imminent #DonetskAirport attack fr North hints to soon unfolding carefully planned provocation.

#BREAKINGNEWS RUSSIAN INVADERS PREPARE OFFENSIVE ON #DONETSK #AIRPORT, CALLING PEOPLE TO LEAVE DONETSK'S NORTHERN QUATERS.

[kaur]

This summer Moscow Levada centre studied how well Russian know how started WW I and WW II. They were asked also about Ukraine. Sorry for Google translat.

Poor understanding of how to start the first and second world wars, raising the specter of the Third. But this is not the main problem. Light (in the opinion of those who have not been there) victory in Georgia in 2008, an easy victory in the Crimea in 2014, give rise to the public the impression that Russia - a great power. It is worth and to war. The cenario that clashes in eastern Ukraine could turn into a "war between Russia and Ukraine", ready to imagine 66% of Russians. Whether they want to immediately stop the conflict, to withdraw "volunteers" to stop supplying weapons there? The survey shows that the answer is no. In general, if it wants to Russian war? Maybe they do not want, but are willing to support those who express such an intention. Answers to the question "Will you support the Russian leadership in a situation of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine?" Were distributed as follows: "Definitely yes" - 17% "more likely" - 38%, "Probably not" - 18% "Definitely not "- 11%" Do not know "- 16%.

http://www.levada.ru/24-10-2014/tri-mirovye-voiny

[OUTLAW 09]

Putin's response to journalist questions today seems to shot holes in the Russian "humiliation" arguments.

'I don't think the USA is a threat to us," says Putin. But 'policy of the (US) ruling circles is mistaken'

Tobi Gati asking Putin who are "they" in his attacks on US - Obama? Foreign policy elite? American people?

Well played Neil Buckley, asked important Q on Russian soldiers rather than worrying about his invite next year. Putin completely ignored it.

No surprise: Putin confirms Moscow helped former Ukraine President Yanukovich flee to Russia last Feb amid protests and police crackdown

Putin on Yanukovych flight: "I won't hide it, we helped him get to Crimea. Even though Crimea was still part of Ukraine."

Did anyone notice not once did he repeat any of the "humiliation" charges Russia and Putin were so fond of during the Crimea.

[OUTLAW 09]

Notice there is no longer any Russian FM nor Putin comments responding to the "alleged" "humiliation reasons" stated so often by them during the Crimean event.

From RIA today:

SOCHI, October 24 (RIA Novosti) - US widespread interference and dictatorship lead to the escalation of conflicts worldwide, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"The exсeptionalism of the United States, the way they implement their leadership, is it really a benefit? And their worldwide intervention brings peace and stability, progress and peak of democracy? Maybe we should relax and enjoy this splendor? No!" Putin stressed at the plenary session of the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

"Unilateral dictatorship and obtrusion of the patterns leads to opposite result. Instead of conflicts settlement – their escalation. Instead of sovereign, stable states - growing chaos. Instead of democracy – support for very dubious public, such as neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists," Putin said.

[OUTLAW 09]

Wow--first Russian complains of being constantly "humiliated by the West because they were a superpower"--NOW it is the reverse Russia does not want to be WHAT a "superpower?---really?

Russia doesn't claim superpower's role - Putin

SOCHI. Oct 24 (Interfax) - Russia is not going to portray itself as a superpower, but it will not allow interference in its internal affairs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

"Does Russia claim the role of a superpower's? No. This is quite a burden for us. What do we need this for? We need a lot of resources, time and strength to develop our own territories. We don't need to meddle anywhere and command anything, but don't you meddle in our affairs, don't pose as arbiters of the world's fates - and that's it. If Russia's leadership in anything is possible, then it's in defending international law," Putin said at a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Friday.

Russia believes that, instead of imposing one's interests on others, it should help build a balanced system of relations in the world, he said.

"Can it be that someone might not reckon with anything, while we can't defend our vital interests and those of the Russian-speaking people and the Russian population in Crimea? It can't be this way. And I want everyone to come to understanding this. You should get rid of this temptation and attempts to comb the world as you see fit but build a balanced system of interests and relations, which was stipulated long ago, and all you should do is treat this with respect," Putin said.

"Yes, we perfectly understand that the world has changed, and we are ready to listen to this and adjust this system accordingly. But we can't allow our interests to be fully ignored, and will never allow this," he said.

[mirhond]

Poor understanding of how to start the first and second world wars, raising the specter of the Third. But this is not the main problem. Light (in the opinion of those who have not been there) victory in Georgia in 2008, an easy victory in the Crimea in 2014, give rise to the public the impression that Russia - a great power. It is worth and to war. The cenario that clashes in eastern Ukraine could turn into a "war between Russia and Ukraine", ready to imagine 66% of Russians. Whether they want to immediately stop the conflict, to withdraw "volunteers" to stop supplying weapons there? The survey shows that the answer is no.

http://www.levada.ru/24-10-2014/tri-mirovye-voiny

Loaded question, false assumption. Don't call it science, please.

[kaur]

My friend mirhond, you are right again! They seem to work for Americans

Almost a year into the Kremlin’s war on civil society, the legal veneer looked familiar: A May 15 letter from prosecutors informed the Levada Center, Russia’s most authoritative independent polling firm, that in publicizing the results of its polls it “aimed at shaping public opinion on government policy” and was, therefore, a “political organization.” And, as a political organization receiving foreign grants (from the likes of the Ford and MacArthur foundations), it had to register as a “foreign agent.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...027_story.html

... and Kremlin. Why Kremlin pays 5 million for such work?

Также гранты получили две крупнейшие социологические организации - "Левада-Центр" (5 млн) и ВЦИОМ (2,4 млн), чьи опросы в последнее время зафиксировали наивысший рейтинг Путина.

http://newsru.com/russia/20jun2014/grants.html

[mirhond]

My friend mirhond, you are right again! They seem to work for Americans

... and Kremlin. Why Kremlin pays 5 million for such work?

Кто девушку ужинает, тот её и танцует, что не понятно?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Anyway, they have to, there is no way around if they want to do real science. So, expect jingoistic poll results along with some plausible ones.
ps. Besides, you've cited not the raw poll data, but some bull$hit assumptions of some unknown "thinker". How the Russian historical mithology is related to WW III prospects - god knows.