The General Russia Thread

CMIIW, but I think the 1993 legislative election played a part in shaping the US response. Zhirinovsky's LDPR won big - and yeah, we know he's a clown today and this was right after Yeltsin instituted rule-by-decree. But from what I gather, there was considerable worry abroad that this meant Russia was on the cusp of collapsing into a fascist dictatorship.

IIRC, it was Lech Walesa who told Clinton that "every second Russian thought like Zhirinovsky" and persuaded him to pave the way for the accession of Poland and other former WarPac states into NATO, while leaving Yeltsin out in the cold.

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

It was his father's administration specifically that deliberately continued the policy. I only brought up articles on W because his were easier to grab at a moment's notice, and are relevant with regards to Putin specifically. I can find other articles from the earlier period though.

It didn't happen under Trump because of a multitude of reasons. 1. A single president doesn't change decades of American policy toward another country (especially if its a country one has adversarial relations with) in one or even two terms, 2. the relations are already so bad and made worse by the very election that put him into power, 3. The way and manner in which he went about it was.....unhelpful at best, 4. It's Trump.

There are specific opportunities and time periods in history where one can change relationships and trajectories in policy. And creating said opportunities takes a lot of groundwork and time when it doesn't happen by sheer luck. The idea that any president at any time, by himself, and only for the US, can just kiss Putin's ass and that would somehow make things better is ludicrous and if that's somehow what you think I mean about breaking contempt, you don't understand what I'm even arguing about.

And the time period when this could have changed can only be seen in hindsight. The late 80s/early 90s, the early 2000s. Could now be another time, now that Trump is gone? Don't know yet. But it certainly doesn't happen on a whim, and it can't only be the US that does it.

Further, when I mean contempt, I do not mean "express" contempt. I mean through policy being contemptuous. Disdainful. The early examples I give from before the cold war were to simply show that this is something that isn't particularly new.

And Russia's policy to the West (and I mean the entire West, not just the US) was quite cordial in the late 80s (as much as the Soviet structure allowed anyway) and early 90s.

&

Oh I mean more than just the US. Poland and the Baltic states in particular have been the main drivers of specifically European disdain during the new millennium.

During the early 90s, it was much more specifically an American issue than a European one, to be true, but its not like no one in Europe didn't support that at the time either. Sure, Germany wasn't one of them, but Britain (under Major, despite his personal understanding that it was a bad idea) didn't get in the US' way.

Yeah, I believe that is also true, and generally part of a pattern in which sympathy for former East Bloc states plight during communism also meant that their opinions carried heavier weight in foreign policy circles than necessarily made sense at the grand strategy level...which is why the aforementioned Polish-Baltic bloc gets generally first dibs these days in crafting Russian policy. Not just in Europe either...

Edited by FFShinra on Mar 2nd 2021 at 6:57:13 AM

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

Those examples hardly indicate a special Western contempt for Russia. Tsar Alexander I. was the only monarch Napoleon even remotely considered an equal, and after 1812 commanded a lot of respect on the diplomatic stage. The contempt for Russia only really took hold intellectually after the October Revolution, and that was understandable given the brutality of the Bolsheviks. But before that Russia was not treated any differently from any other Great power.

Major wanted to start talks about Russia joining the EC, so he hardly qualifies as being contemptuous. Thatcher - despite her reputation - was very mindful towards Russia's position by the late 1980s and showed great concern for Gorbachevs' safety after the fall of the Berlin Wall. She was very contemptuous towards Germany, but certainly not Russia. The same counts for Mitterand - at least for 1989-1990 - and his successor Chirac.

Edited by Zarastro on Mar 2nd 2021 at 3:50:22 PM

Yeah I had just deleted the bit about France when I saw your post.

However, on Major, his personal views aside, remained lockstep with George Sr.'s policies. So even when he knew what the US was doing was a bad idea, he didn't put a stop to it either. I'll withdraw my comment on Thatcher, as I had been thinking about German reunification when I made it.

EDIT - Just because one thinks another leader is a peer in power doesn't mean they weren't viewed as savages. The faked will shows that well enough.

Edited by FFShinra on Mar 2nd 2021 at 6:59:30 AM

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

What kind of mistakes did Bush Sr. commit regarding Russia? I have read numerous historians praising his efforts to support a peaceful evolution in Eastern Europe, and he seems to have been well respected in Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/moscow-looks-back-with-nostalgia-on-bush-as-steady-hand-while-soviet-union-collapsed/2018/12/01/f8bc918a-f571-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html

As for the "testament" I am not sure what this is supposed to indicate? It was likely written by a Polish noble who hoped to rally others up against Russia to free his homeland, but Russia was hardly the only country suspected of trying to dominate Europe. The same used to be said about the Ottomans, and everybody was scared of France and its' attempts to export the recolution. There was of course a tendency to portray Russians as uncultured savages, but then again every country considered its' borders as the edge of civilization. It is unlikely that e.g. a Frenchman who despised the Russians would have had a significantly better impression of Russians or Austrians.

My point is that Russia was not treated any differently than the other of the four mayor European powers. In fact Russia enjoyed almost a century of good relations with its two Western neighbours Prussia and Austria (like all good neighbours they threatened each other a few times, but never went to war) once they all decided that Poland the easiest target for them. Russia was often idealized by German writers and poets during this time, which left traces to this day.

Now some progressive thinkers tended to criticize Russia for its' perceived backwardness and they did have a point. Russia was e.g. the last European power to abolish serfdom and by 1914 the last true autocracy. Not that the other countries were always that much better of course, but they looked better in comparison. However those intellectuals were rarely in charge of policies and like I said, Russia was not singled out for contempt back then. Btw. another country that was often the target of contempt was the USA. It was seen as a backwards wilderness where you send your unwanted to let them fight with savages. Not everybody thought so of course, but quite a lot did.

You underestimate how much that idea of "barbarism" among the intelligencia influenced policy. They didn't make policy themselves, but they influenced those who did. Further, it wasn't a Polish noble who wrote it, but the French at the command of Napoleon himself. It is a document that has been used to justify war against Russia since the 1800s all the way to WWII. So it's no "so what" document, though I find it interesting that you find anything that is used in that way against Russia is less important or meaningful than if it were the opposite direction.

And John Major states in his auto-biography (and its the reason I state he is at fault for not doing anything) quote "to disregard Russia when she was weak might not be forgotten when she was strong again.", and that was published in 2000 (and other sources quote that a couple of years earlier when Yeltsin was still around).

Also, it was Bush Sr.'s idea to keep NATO around post-Cold War and expand it, something Clinton and Jr. ran with (and was even more blatant about in terms of contempt for Russia, throughout most of his presidency except at times when it became clear that not being supportive would have led even worse outcomes than ended up being the case with Putin).

Instead of pretending the West never did anything wrong except when it treats Russia well, it'd probably make better sense if you just acknowledged that it's as much their fault for how far the relationship fell as it was Russia's. Saying it's all Putin's/Russia's fault and that Europe was perfect (except whenever it was nice to Russia) is a bad take, and only ensures Putinesque policies keep getting support among Russians.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the English Wikipedia cites seriously out of date sources on this topic (the newest seems to be from 1948!). There has been intensive research the origin of this document in the last few decades, and it is now widely acceptat that it was written by a Polish noble.

Secondly, the testament was just one the many tools used as propaganda by Napoleon and it played little role in later wars. Compared to other things Napoleon (and his enemies) made up as propaganda it is hardly exceptional. You should read what the French wrote about the Prussians and vice versa. And like I said, Russia enjoyed stable relations with 2 out of the other 4 Great powers of the day for a century, that is more than can be said about most. During this time, there was a significant cultural and scientific exchange between Russia and its' Western neighbours, which partly shapes the somewhat nostalgic picture of Russia to this day.

Major may feel like he did not enough to reconcile with Russia, but like I said there were steps taken in this direction and who knows if he still feels like this today, after witnessing what Putin is capable of. Another organization for cooperation like Nato-Russia Council would not have mended the fact Russia was no longer a Superpower in control of Eastern Europe.

There is a big difference between claiming no responsibility and claiming equal responsibility. Is the West completely blameless? No, of course not. It is possible that more could have been done to entice Russia? Maybe, though I don't know about any concrete proposals. However it also true that such steps were taken, that Russia was treated fairly and with dignity when its' Empire collapsed and that a wide range of Western leaders met their Russian counterparts with sympathy and friendship. The West was open for cooperation with Russia. It was ultimately Russia under Putin who refused, because it rejected the conditions upon which a partnership could be build: Respect for borders, peace, democracy and the sovereignity of any country no matter how small. I would argue that the election of Putin put any such hopes to rest. A man mourns the demise of an Empire that once oppressed half of Europe and threatened the other half is hardly predisposed for a partnership.

Finally there is an unfortunate tendency in the West to absolve Russia from responsibility for its' actions by claiming that it was forced into it by the West. This includes e.g. the ubfounded claim that Western leaders gave Gorbachev a guarantee that their would be no future NATO enlargements in 1990. Nobody forced Putin to oppress his people, undermine democracy and attack the Ukraine. Russia could have had a positive influence on Europe for the first time in many decades, but he decided that the best way forward was back to the Imperial past.

It's not like your source on the Polish nobleman is from last year. In fact, it is older than the 1948 one. And anyway, since when did the age of the source matter? And what makes your source somehow more relevant than mine? Pretty lame argument.

Also the point of bringing up the document is that it was used multiple times since that period up until the second world war. It's also only one piece of evidence that Russia has received systemic villainization in the West well before the modern era and instead of accepting that that did happen, you're spending so much energy with proving some false idea that the West was never disdainful of any cultures outside of itself...which flies in the fact of how they dealt with all cultures they don't see as European....and Russia was/is one of them.

A gentlemen's agreement not to expand (confirmed by the then US ambassador to the Soviet Union) is not the same as "unfounded". It just means Europe decided not to honor that agreement and now hides behind the fact that it was not written in stone as a treaty or similar.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

The initial claim that it was written from a Polish noble was made in 1912 by a Polish historian and has in the last 30 or years been deemed as the most likely theory by historians. The book I was refering to was written in German a few years ago or so and gives an overview over the different theories and what different historians have written about it.

You usually don't cite textbooks from 70 years ago in scientific debates unless in very rare instances. We are not necessarily smarter than in the past, but we have better methods of research and that includes better ways to e.g. better analyze handwritings and discover writing patterns. I am not sure if the thesis about the origin of the testament is correct, but I would look for a newer source to back it up.

I never claimed that the West was never disdainful to other cultures, that would be ridiculous. And as a historian I must point out that the idea of the West as a political and cultural entity is only really applicable for after WWII. Before that most countries we now count as being part of the West would have strictly denied sharing close similarities with each other.

Here is my problem. I have spent quite a bit of time with studying Russia's foreign policy with a special interest in their dealings with Prussia. Russia was one of the five Great European powers since the 18th century and I have yet read a claim that they were treated in a special way from any other Great power. They were viewed with suspicion due to its' succesful expansion, but that happened with any other succesful country. The Russian Tsar enjoyed greater prestige than e.g. the Prussian king since he held an higer title and Russian diplomats were well-liked guests at court.

You should see how they dealt with other cultures that were deemed European. The Spanish call what they perceive as villification by the British as "Leyenda negra", and Spain had a very poor reputation in particulary the Protestant part of Europe which in turn was despised by the Catholics. Let us be perfectly clear here: Pretty much everybody considered his own country as the pinnacle of civilization. For the French, the Rhine marked the edge of civilization for the last 2000 years. The Germans thought off themselves as the only truly dynamic and inventive people and so on. Belittling the others was part of a process of self-affirmation. And the Russians were hardly the worst off in this regard, the HRE and the Prussians suffered from far more effective propaganda ploys.

But it was not used as an official justification for war. Sure it may have been used as a tool of propaganda, but then again no side was particulary squeamish on what they used. There were e.g. British diplomats who had no problem with portraying German histories since Arminius as a string of violence and conquest as war time propaganda. So yeah, I don't see why this testament is such a big deal. It shows that there attempts the Russians as seeking domination over Europe by their enemies, but that is what you usually did to your enemies.

Soviet diplomats were notorious for two things: Always fighting for any phrase that might be important and always putting important things into writing. Mind you they were notorious for this in a buisness where everyone is careful about phrasing and writing, so that should give you an idea how serious they were about this. The negotiations for the treaty of Moscow (1970) and the Helsinki Accords were by all accounts exasperating for those reasons. The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany shows that they hadn't slipped up, the Russians even made sure to include an extra paragraph about the treatment of war memorials. Yet the same diplomats were supposedly perfectly fine with just a verbal agreement and a handshake on such a crucial matter with no written source to back it up and none of the people involved confirming it? Please. The historical facts are also pointing into a different direction. The declaration of the 1990 London summit explicitely confirmed that every country was free to choose its' alliance and was signed by the Soviet Union.

Edited by Zarastro on Mar 4th 2021 at 8:53:00 PM

Gorbachev himself has apparently said that there was no agreement about NATO expansion, just NATO troops in former East Germany. He does however say that NATO enlargement violated the spirit of that agreement. [1]

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Which seems more like an ex-post justification than anything else. It is worth remembering that the Warsaw Pact still existed during the negotiations for German reunification, and that Gorbachev still hoped to preserve both the Pact and the Soviet Union. Western diplomats have repeatedly stated since then that Nato membership of e.g. Lithuania - which did not exist yet - were not a scenario anyone considered plausible. Nobody could know for sure which direction the newly independent Eastern European countries would take and whether they would orientate themselves to the West. Furthermore it is not like the negotiators had any mandate to talk about the fate of the Eastern European countries without even their consultation and certainly not in an offhand manner which is implied by this scenario. When they did discuss this more seriously in London in 1990, Gorbachev confirmed the right of the Eastern European countries to join any alliance they liked.

All things considered it is rather obvious that Gorbachev simply did not predict that the NATO-membership of Poland and the Baltic states would become a realistic scenario only a few years later, and also probably underestimated how much those countries would want to distance themselves from Russia. This was just an attempt to save face while not resorting to a blatant lie.

Oh heck, what did I miss?

Basically an argument over the question whether or not Russia has been treated with contempt by the West after the Berlin Wall fell and whether or not such contempt has been a defining feature of Russia's interaction with its' Western neighbours for the last centuries.

I mean, I can't speak for the whole West, and I'm sure most of it doesn't care, but I haven't heard the US say a positive thing about Russia ever since I learned to read in English. Like, at all. Everything in Russia is apparently 100% miserable with no end in sight and we are simultaneously a crumbling wreck of a country and a direct threat to world peace.

What do you think could be covered more positively?

Really, everything that isn't politics. Usually, when Russian life, industry or anything else gets mentioned, it's with an air of imminent collapse incoming due to Putin's actions.

Edited by KnitTie on Mar 6th 2021 at 10:51:05 AM

Not the last centuries. My initial argument was since around the fall of the USSR. I simply brought up older examples because it wasn't something sudden, just something that has always been in the back of the mind of most European powers going back a while that has then come increasingly to the fore in recent decades.

And Knit, I'd also add that coverage also stems from everyone thinking Russia now is still like Russia of the 1990s. It's not always specifically Putin.

What I'd like to know about is good modern Russian art. Movies and video games especially.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

I think this is appropriate to the thread's topic.

A Union of Museum Cats was established in Saint Petersburg

Now museum cats will finally have the employment and job security that they deserve

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 6th 2021 at 12:31:56 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Again, I'd like to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia was treated in any unusual way by the other Great Powers for most of its' history. It was seen as a mostly reliable neighbour by its' Western neighbours for most of the 19th century (it only really went South when Russia agressively pushed its' Panslavic ideology in the Balkans in the late 19th century). Tsar Alexander was a coveted ally by Napoleon and his enemies and in the 18th century it was part of the so-called stately quadrille between the Great Powers.

Edited by Zarastro on Mar 6th 2021 at 1:00:19 PM

Russia also has a pretty big LARP scene.

Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)

I'm more of a fan of our absolutely batcrap wild craft beer scene. The most insane combos ever. Like gooseberry lambic matured in sherry casks.

But yeah, reading through the thread, I can definitely confirm that Europhilic self-hatred is the only thing our opposition has in common. It's also the only thing it consistently puts out as a message to the rest of Russia, and the main reason why it's so, so unpopular even with Putin's government being obviously corrupt and indolent.

If your chief message is how the people of your country are not good enough, don't expect those same people to like you. It's not even a message of "we need to improve," no, it's straight-up "we suck," which doesn't tend to be popular outside of internet slacktivists hungry for outrage.

And Navalny absolutely would buddy up to Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov is he ever ended up in a position of power, he's okay with crazier people. And he hasn't done a lot of damage not because he doesn't want to, but because he has no actual power in Russia at all outside some internet communities. He's the absolute picture of a eurocentric racist nationalist who wants to close the borders and religiously profile Muslims, why on earth wouldn't he do damage if he could?

Edited by KnitTie on Mar 6th 2021 at 6:16:51 AM

And honestly, what is it with folks misinterpreting my saying that Putin isn't directly orchestrating the opposition repression and assassinations as freaking defence of Putin? What, because I don't regularly post about how Putin is an evil sociopath and should be hanged? He's an evil sociopath and should be hanged, you can quote me on that if you want. Me elaborating on how his repression apparatus works is not a defence of him.

People think that limiting themselves to pointing fingers at Putin and declaring him to be capital-B Bad is somehow better, or something, than actually trying to understand how Russian repression apparatus works and what makes it work. Why? Is this an ideological purity thing, where learning stuff about your enemy is an inherently bad activity?

Edited by KnitTie on Mar 6th 2021 at 6:17:32 AM

I already gave evidence. You want to ignore it or consider it "not a big deal", thats your problem. But then you seem to think subjugation of Palestinians is also no big deal, mistreatment of Muslims and Arabs generally "not to be a big deal" as well, so I think I'm just going to accept that your point of view is moot and you are unwilling to listen to alternatives or care.

I've only ever been here to explain why something is, not "how it should be". You don't want to understand or accept the why, you can continue to deal with Russian belligerence. Makes no difference.

Okay THAT is pretty cool.

I'm not much of a beer person, but I must say my curiosity is somewhat piqued by these combos.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

My city also has, like, 6 different types of spicy beer. Yes, with pepper. I think there's also a sriracha barley wine?

Edited by KnitTie on Mar 6th 2021 at 8:04:45 AM