How Russia Went from Ally to Adversary
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
The asset stripping and oligarchisarion we permitted in the early 90s isn’t quite the stuff of the Treaty of Versailles. But it certainly rhymes in that a vanquished power laid prostrate was left to the vultures.
Same reason we did in 1948: to preserve and strengthen a hard-won peace.
> was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
I’ve never seen someone tie FDR’s New Deal to the Marshall Plan. Curious if there’s a substantiated link.
In general I think the west tends to underestimate how frail a young democracy is.
Western-style Democracy isn't something that spontaneously happens when a despot is removed. It takes a long-ass time for the institutions to establish legitimacy, and when installed in an environment when there's large inequalities from the get-go, things may change, but they will also stay the same.
Manufacturing prosperity through something like the Marshall plan is one way to actually let things settle in the right way.
As the climate crisis shows, we are perpetually and knowingly heading for the proverbial brick wall full steam ahead in the name of a quick buck.
As I said, I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Maybe it's true at least in the sense that during the cold war, the west couldn't really afford to rest on its laurels. Even the most dysfunctional market had to be compelled to beat the Soviet null hypothesis as a matter of survival for the way of life.
Of course, pretty easy for those in power in Russia to make a big deal to people there about their industry being bought by foreign powers, to make that unattractive or even illegal, and to then snap it all up for next to nothing. The West should have foreseen this and had an alternative plan, more like local partnerships or whatever.
In the first century B.C.E., Julius Caesar implemented a series of redistributionist land reforms [1]. One component was a minimum-hold period to prevent the aristocrats from just going and buying it all back up again.
The re-concentration was absolutely foreseeable. Classical history is no longer fashionable in American elite education, so I get how this was overlooked by the bankers. But it points to a lack of a give-a-shit-factor which, in my agreement with you, does not confer responsibility, but does represent a massive missed opportunity.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Triumvirate#Caesar’s_c... search Lex agraria
The other factor, aside from greed, that caused the asset stripping madness was the worry that the socialists would retake power in Russia as they had a significant presence in parliament. I’ve heard that part of the need for speed (and lack of longterm plan) was the perception that Russia needed to see off that threat ASAP.
But came next was much worse.
Communists. But you are right, every opposition leader in Russia cries wolf how they should not have supported Yeltsin rigging elections and how it all went astray since then
Try to send a few billion in Russia. How much do you expect to be stolen?
Note that the doctrine applies to all countries external to the USA. Which includes allies such as the EU.
>The development of Russia in the post-Cold War period was not the result of a Western plot or Western actions. Russian officials chose, within a narrow range of options, how to behave, and they could have chosen differently. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in February, 2022, was no more inevitable or foreordained than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Still, it’s worth asking what other course we might have followed.
* Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999
* Invasion of Iraq in 2003
* Recognition of Kosovo in 2008
* Military intervention in Libya 2011
* Snowden's revelations of global surveillance in 2013
* Military intervention in Syria 2014
Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
Nobody followed the human rights or no-foreign military intervention chapters of international law, ever. Not in the Cold War [1]. Not in the 90s [2][3].
The one chapter that was held sacrosanct by the Great Powers was no annexing. There was Metternichean proxy governing. But no annexing. That is the red line Putin blundered through.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
> Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95
Correction, Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...
That’s a hell of a punt there. You said “the US set the precedent” for disregarding international law, starting by citing the bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99. Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95, and the Soviet Union (alongside America) was violating the foreign-intervention chapters since basically they were penned.
So no, there was no precedent. America continued with the status quo. You’re arguing Washington failed to create a new precedent, as it did when it had global nuclear hegemony in the aftermath of WWII. That’s a legitimate argument. But a different one from that which you’re making.
Why are the Americans (or NATO) always responsible for the awful things the Russian government does?
I don't see how US could be blamed for this.
And elections in 1993 (after the dissolution of parliament) were won by Zhirinovsky's party, communists were only 3rd. US never supported Zhirinovsky and he wasn't a communist.
I don't see how US could be blamed for anything that happened in 1993 because they were really trying to stop the crisis, but far-right nationalists (like Barkashov and Makashov) started military actions, like mayor's office assault and TV building attack.
This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
You should practice reading plain English.
> This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
Communists returning to power in Russia was an actual concern for the US foreign policy. For example it is unclear if Yeltsin fairly won against Zyuganov in 1996. Even today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation polls around 20%. They are the largest opposition party. Although it is pretty obvious they are a fake Communist Party
Major problems with economy happened during 1994 (like famous black Tuesday) and communists became more popular, but they were not the same people who tried to start military coup in 1993 (Zyuganov was very much against any military actions).
In 1996 Zuyganov lost because Lieutenant General Lebed supported Eltsin, he was Berezovsky's creature and was much more "brutal" that Zyuganov (who was looking exactly as Soviet era nomenklatura) . I highly doubt that anyone in US gave this idea to Berezovsky, because people in US had very little understating what rural Russians wanted to see and hear.
In 1993 Yeltsin tried to disolve the parliament without a legal basis in the Russian constitution. He did this to push through a new constitution which granted the president far reaching powers (hello Putin). In other words, he commited a coup. Every Western history book will tell you that the West supported him and that it would have been impossible for him to succeed without Western support, which is only logical because the coup happened in order to fasten Russia's transition to a Western-style market economy. At the time communists in Russia were extremely disorganised but the nation began to realize that they were sold a turd with the collapse of planned economy and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Grass root communists supported the parliament and in Moscow took to street action in much the same way that Nazi groups like Right Sector did during Maidan. Russia also had Nazis supporting the parliament (eg. National Bolsheviks ... Commie Nazis like in the Simpsons) but in the end who the US supports in ex-USSR will determine the success or failure of the coup and/or acceptability of using heavy handed methods of suppression. And dont worry, if you get confused about Nazis as your comrades, the US will also help you decide which Nazis/Jihadists/Nationalists/Terrorists are good and which are bad. So I guess that maybe you should study the history of foreign intervention in your country better.
It wasn't a coup because we had new elections in December and people also voted during those elections in favor of new constitution. So you think that US had to be against people's vote?! Elections were real, not like in modern Russia.
And your idea that 1993 events had something in common with Maidan is really delusive - rural Russia just watched CNN live reports from Moscow and did nothing. No one was going to support "nazis" in Moscow. In couple of days everyone returned to their private lives and almost no one was prosecuted.
And during referendum in December people decided their own fate, US had nothing to do with it. Or you are trying to tell me that my parents voted in 1993 twice because someone from US told them how to vote? This is just some silly foreigner's view which is real nonsense.
And who really cared about Clinton? Next year Eltsin started 1st Chechen war without asking anyone's permission. What Russia needed back then was money. And US was giving it to us because they were scared: Russia with nuclear weapons and without money was a really scary monster, ready to sell anything to the highest bidder. From nuclear to biological and chemical weapons.
BTW, one of the scientists who was working with "Novichok" sold it to Chechen gangsters and they actually killed local banker and some other guys around. And he is still not feeling guilty about this story. Russia was ready to sell anything to anyone. That's why Clinton had to support someone and pay. Eltsin was mostly ok, not worse than any other former communist leader.
> And who really cared about Clinton? Next year Eltsin started 1st Chechen war without asking anyone's permission.
On 11.09.2001 an ex employee of the US government crashed a bunch of planes accross the US without (probably) asking anyone's permission.
> Eltsin was mostly ok, not worse than any other former communist leader.
Im pretty sure it is not controversial to say that most Russians view Yeltsin as a huge failure and a disgrace
The same people who voted for opposition party also voted for the new Constitution. And that party was not a communist party. Some people say that Zhirinovsky was a FSB's project. In this case your ideas that US had anything to do with 12.1993 elections looks even more weird! Or stupid.
Yeltsin's support was very different in 1991 and in 1999. The problem was that Russia in 90s was still controlled by former communists/komsomol members, who were cynical, corrupt, brutal and terribly educated.
They didn't care about US and always tried to push pro-Russian ideas, check what Eltsin told to Clinton about Ukraine.. US had very limited involvement in internal politics, they just "hoped" that Russian will eventually become a normal country.
But when another stupid former communist Berezovsky decided to put his Puppet Putin into Kremlin - he failed miserably. KSB agent cannot do anything positive - his training is always about ruining and destroying, bringing lies and hate, stealing and bribing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_...
In case you are just trying to apply,
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card
> yes, yes, no, yes - I still remember that song on radio :
Why do I need to apply for green card? What for? Are you ok there?
Here is the famous "yes, yes, no, yes" song by Pugacheva with funny reference to April's referendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C1F3A7bVu0
The only person from US very active in Russia during 1993 was not Clinton. It was Soros. Many thanks to this guy for paying for my broadband Internet access :) But his political influence was close to 0.
And please stop describing Russians as US puppets. It's your weird ideas only.
You're putting a loser mentality on full display. As much as cynical smartass Russians like to mock "fat stupid Americans", in the end of the day it comes down to what kind of life do governments provide for their citizens. Americans live far longer, healthier, happier, more peaceful and more prosperous lives than you do. They have allies all over the world who willingly engage in commerce, cultural exchange, political and military cooperation, and many other things without coersion because of the mutual benefits it brings.
Russia is a cargo cult version of this. Tries to imitate American influence in the world, but fails, because Russians bring very little of any value to the this world. Mostly things that are in the ground anyway, and not products of their ingenuity and determined work.
No, you are not equals. America is a vast incredibly rich empire, but you're just a gas station with nukes. No amount of whataboutism changes the simple fact that everyone envies the Americans and sees you as losers.
Some folks are caught in purity spirals. Your basic problem (or at least one of them, anyway -- from the content of your postings here, you seem to have many) is that you're caught in a Whataboutism spiral. Which is just as debilitating, but you don't seem to realize this yet.
Wow that is amazing considering the history of the country you're attempting to support here. None of this is a precedent, the Russians/USSR did it all way before any of this even happened.
> Curiously, it was the US support for Syrian head-chopping Islamic freedom fighters that Putin said was the final straw for tolerating US unilateralism.
I think you will find that it was Putins ambitions for imperialism that was the final straw in Putins actions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
Quote: "On the summit’s first day, Gorbachev lamented the sad state of his economy and ..."
Communist economy was a bankrupt one, based on pillaging, not by producing anything new and good. Their "golden" years, of 50's and 60's was based on actually pillaging all the Eastern Bloc countries and leave them poorer. In every single country the USSR imposed an export-import type of firms, that "imported" Russian stuff, old and outdated from the 20's and 30's which were valued like they were the latest and greatest and exported that country best resource (be it gold, oil or grain). Once those resources were pillaged so the USSR economic decline started.
For more than 4 decades this was slavery with extra steps. So yeah, the Russians are hated by every single former Eastern Bloc country, because we did not forget their heavy boot throughout of "red enlightenment" era.
Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.
Maybe if Clinton hadn't fucked up and had done a Marshall Plan for Russia, thing would be different.
I don’t think many Americans realize how tenuous the hold on power Russian politicians was in the 1990s.
Free shit.
"Helped deactivate 5,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads, over 600 missile launchers (including over 360 ICBM silos), over 540 ICBMs and SLBMs, 64 heavy bombers and 15 missile submarines through U.S.-Russian cooperative threat reduction programs. The Clinton Administration also worked with Russia to ensure successful denuclearization efforts in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan; 3,300 nuclear warheads were moved to Russia and placed in storage. And today, no Russian nuclear weapons are targeted at an American city."
"Prevented the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from Russia through the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI), complementing and reinforcing other nonproliferation efforts, such as in 1995, when Russia agreed to forego sales of cryogenic rocket engines to India. The Clinton Administration also provided critical support to safeguard fissile material that was not properly stored or protected. A June 2000 agreement between President Clinton and President Putin provides for the safe, transparent and irreversible destruction of 68 metric tons of Russian and American (34 tons each) weapons grade plutonium - enough plutonium to make thousands of nuclear weapons."
"Promoted regional security and integration by strengthening the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the New Independent States. The Clinton Administration also sought to promote Russia's integration with the new Europe and its participation in institutions such as the G-8. Russia withdrew its troops from the Baltic states and Central Europe. Russia reaffirmed the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine as part of the landmark 1994 U.S.-Ukrainian-Russian agreement on post-Soviet denuclearization. Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, codifying a cooperative relationship with NATO, despite Russian objections to NATO enlargement. For the first time since World War II, Russian and American troops serve side by side in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Russian diplomacy was critically important during the Kosovo conflict. "
And much more.. --> https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-...
>> Today, under NATO’s nuclear sharing program, the remaining bombs complement the alliance’s collective security deterrent against threats, principally Russia.
https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons...
That's such an odd statement for the White House to make. I have to assume that they meant that on a political level. Nobody was interested in MAD anymore at the time and nuclear weapons suddenly felt like relics of a bygone era. It's not like they went to every installation and removed the targeting data in whatever form.
You mean the ones in Ukraine that, were they still there would act as a deterrent to the invasion?
It is difficult to see a stable, liberal Russian democracy that America can and should respect without either changing its borders or massively empowering its non-ethnic Russians and peripheral regions. That’s the sort of power and wealth transfer that usually takes civil war or unconditional surrender to achieve.
Like in the US and UK and Australia and New Zealand and Canada?
EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW
Over 14% of Texans live in poverty, and moreover, "twenty-three percent of all persons in the Texas-Mexico border counties are living under the Federal Poverty Line, and 25 percent of persons in the border counties lack health insurance." [0]
[0] https://www.dshs.texas.gov/hiv-std-program/hiv-dashboard/tex...
On the peripheral front, absolutely. Texans and Alaskans are rich and powerful off their oil, and have the power to tell Washington to go screw itself in major respects. (Similar for Albertans.)
Ethnic tensions are more complex, and on this unexpectedly Putin represents the liberal front, but both American tribes and Canadian First Nations have more legal autonomy than e.g. Siberia. (Chechnya being an unfortunate model exception.)
In the end, China may succeed where America failed. Where America saw a potential democracy, Beijing sees a spigot of resources with a contained military with which Moscow cannot create trouble outside its own borders. That may be the least-worst solution for the time being.
EDIT: Yes, Texas isn’t a utopia. No, this isn’t evidence of Washington having an imperial relationship with Austin. There are disagreements, of course, but both sides can and do force the other to back down.
I can remember no less than five different genocides in Russia just off the top of my head. As for civil rights, these are being rolled back at an amazing speed.
You might too, if you'd stop lashing out strangers like this.
It might surprise you that Russia and especially the USSR did none of those things.
Please -- don't bother. We all know exactly what went down in both the Tsarist and Soviet empires, and when.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation
I suggest you try visiting some of these countries sometime. Or at least talk a few people who actually grew up there. You might learn something.
Hmm -- this really is quite a presumptuous (and basically highly obnoxious) attitude to take. But if you want to go on believing that people who don't echo the same set of coded beliefs as yourself -- do so because they are unread, have no direct knowledge of these countries, are brainwashed by the media or the education system or whatever -- that's up to you.
A place that would never have gotten rid of Nazism had it not been for the Soviet Union.
"Never" is rather doubtful, and bordering on science fiction (given what we know about unstable the Reich was in reality). The "hero" view of the Soviets' allegedly overwhelming contribution to overall war effort is also not something that follows from any balanced view of the historical record.
But what we do know from the historical record -- is that most of these places likely never would have been invaded in the first place, had Stalin not greenlighted Hitler's plans via a certain famous agreement in 1939.
How about fighting 70% of the Wehrmacht. Read about the Eastern Front instead of just watching Saving Private Ryan :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
> But what we do know from the historical record -- is that most of these places likely never would have been invaded in the first place, had Stalin not greenlighted Hitler's plans via a certain famous agreement in 1939.
What often doesn't get mentioned in history classes is that before the infamous Stalin-Hitler pact, USSR tried to obtain a military pact with the West and that the West prologned the signing of any such agreements. Some even say that the Western powers (UK especially) hoped that Hitler would only focus his effort to the East and in that way deal with the rise of worldwide communist movement.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/322...
So Stalin went to Hitler. He was really mad guy, paranoid, former gangster.
USSR != Russia
> Only Hitler was ready to sign such agreements.
Im pretty sure Austrians, Czechs and Slovaks would disagree
> former gangster
Maybe he was just street smart :)
Oh, boo-hoo. And (just as with its successor state today), its feelings were sooo hurt, it just had to steamroll over those decadent neighboring countries (that should have known better than to be situated on its doorstep anyway). And accidentally deport a good chunk of their population to a place with low survival rates. And accidentally dig those holes in the forest that 22,000 civilians and former military personnel just happened to fall into.
USSR was not the same as Russia
In terms of whose overall interests it was serving -- of course it was.
Also, the Russian poverty rate is 12%. The poverty level is $2200.
> I would be jumping for joy to be honest. Just living here you hit the jackpot.
Lol. Keep this comming please
This would create an economic super-bloc that even China could not confront.
I think that is the real threat to American hegemony: Europe and Russia, getting along. It'd be awesome, but not so much in Washington DC ..
But rest assured, Russians have been concerned about it for years. It is a thing for them. They know what our armed forces have been doing, even if we don't ..
Could it just be inertia of thinking from the Cold War? The USSR was known to be powerful, and Russia is kinda the USSR, so it's assumed Russia has to be kinda powerful.
It's going to be interesting to observe how will Russian standing in the world change, now that the war is revealing that the Tsar has no clothes.