I’m not sure you understand what exactly was going on in the 90s and early 2000s, but considering your comment on Ukraine, I question whether having the conversation would be at all productive.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation. If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland. They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it. There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this? I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation.
Both sides did, actually. The refrain in the US was always that Russians weren’t the enemy, that Communism was - we learned our lesson with our propaganda campaigns against Germany in WW1. Even Reagan, anti-Soviet agitator extraordinaire, stuck to that line. Yeltsin expressed strong interest in joining the international order - even Putin claims that he raised the issue of NATO, though he wanted special fast-track status for Russia, which was a non-starter. God, I don’t know how to express the sheer triumphalism of 90s academia on the subject. Communism was defeated. Russia was free. That was what the West told itself.
If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland.
There was no Marshall Plan for Poland. Or any of the ex-Sovs or Warsaw Pact states. The Soviet Union refused all aid when the Marshall Plan was implemented in the 40s, and there was neither the political will nor interest in the 90s in extending generous aid terms. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Baltic States - they all managed to escape not only the horrendous effects of ‘Shock Therapy’, but also half a century of Soviet exploitation, if not necessarily evenly. Yet Russia, and Belarus, did not. One might then begin looking for reasons why Russia and Belarus failed to integrate, rather than reasons why the West failed to welcome, with that in mind.
They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it.
This I agree with. ‘Shock therapy’ was nothing but a plundering of the old Soviet states by a plutocratic elite who could generously be said to have gotten high on their own supply of free market fetishism, or more cynically to simply have done what the faithless dogs would do with any weakened state - strip it bare for short term gain.
There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Man, you put too much stock in old grudges. As much as I enjoy ragging on Old Worlders for their ancient blood feuds, it’s not actually that prominent in terms of diplomatic behavior. International relations are predicated almost exclusively on “What can you offer me NOW?” If they weren’t, Germany would never have snuggled up to Russia, France would currently be blockading Britain, and Spain would have cut off the New World colonies which kicked them out. In the 30s and 40s, Ukrainians and Poles were genociding each other, independent of Nazi-led initiatives - now the relation between the two countries is very warm.
History matters for context - but speaking as a History Major, it rarely matters more than present circumstances.
Thank you for your well thought out response. I still think that there was no path to cooperation without a buy out. Even though both sides ostensibly were against the leaders of their opponents, Reagen would say were against the communist regime not the russians and kruschev would say they’re against the imperialist capitalists not the americans, how that was interpreted by the average person was just anti-american, anti-russian sentiment. In the 90s Russians either saw westerners as their cold war enemy or the carpet baggers looting their country.
The only way to win the Russians over would be a marshall plan like foreign aid package that would buy they’re loyalty. Stalin refused it in the 40s for ideological reasons but I doubt Yeltsin would turn down free money. It’s just that there was no political will in the west because there lingering antagonism towards Russia and the idea that liberal capitalism would solve all their problems. They will shell out huge sums for military aid for Ukraine, which again is justified, but if they had sent an equivalent sum to what we are sending now to Ukraine to Russia in the 90s I don’t think we’d be in this mess.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this?
Yes, definitely. NATO expansion has long been a goal of NATO hardliners, and NATO support in NATO countries has shot up to a degree few would have expected before Russia made the dubious decision of validating the purpose of the old alliance, which had become lethargic and uncertain in recent years.
What reason is there to exclude Ukraine from NATO once the war is over? Do you think the West wants to deal with a land-grab like this bullshit again, disrupting international markets? Or do you think we’d much prefer to station a token ‘tripwire’ force in Ukraine and ensure that Russia can’t do this bullshit again in ten years?
The EU I’m less informed on the nuances of, but it seems to me they’re pretty forward about opening a path to EU membership to Ukraine. I’d be more concerned on the EU trying to stall on including them in the Schengen Area than excluding them from the EU entirely.
I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
I appreciate that you aren’t a tankie, or a Russian bootlicker, but sometimes national (or international) interests and the right thing line up. Western hegemony benefits most from countries deeply connected to the international market (ie Russia and Ukraine) NOT invading each other and disrupting world trade. As Russia is the aggressor, it is in the interests of the West to discourage further aggression, both practically (supporting Ukraine to end the war faster) and in principle (assuring other countries that their sovereignty will be reinforced in the case of blatant outside interference).
I’m not sure you understand what exactly was going on in the 90s and early 2000s, but considering your comment on Ukraine, I question whether having the conversation would be at all productive.
It wouldn’t be. They don’t seem old enough or are just ignorant.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation. If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland. They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it. There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this? I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
Both sides did, actually. The refrain in the US was always that Russians weren’t the enemy, that Communism was - we learned our lesson with our propaganda campaigns against Germany in WW1. Even Reagan, anti-Soviet agitator extraordinaire, stuck to that line. Yeltsin expressed strong interest in joining the international order - even Putin claims that he raised the issue of NATO, though he wanted special fast-track status for Russia, which was a non-starter. God, I don’t know how to express the sheer triumphalism of 90s academia on the subject. Communism was defeated. Russia was free. That was what the West told itself.
There was no Marshall Plan for Poland. Or any of the ex-Sovs or Warsaw Pact states. The Soviet Union refused all aid when the Marshall Plan was implemented in the 40s, and there was neither the political will nor interest in the 90s in extending generous aid terms. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Baltic States - they all managed to escape not only the horrendous effects of ‘Shock Therapy’, but also half a century of Soviet exploitation, if not necessarily evenly. Yet Russia, and Belarus, did not. One might then begin looking for reasons why Russia and Belarus failed to integrate, rather than reasons why the West failed to welcome, with that in mind.
This I agree with. ‘Shock therapy’ was nothing but a plundering of the old Soviet states by a plutocratic elite who could generously be said to have gotten high on their own supply of free market fetishism, or more cynically to simply have done what the faithless dogs would do with any weakened state - strip it bare for short term gain.
Man, you put too much stock in old grudges. As much as I enjoy ragging on Old Worlders for their ancient blood feuds, it’s not actually that prominent in terms of diplomatic behavior. International relations are predicated almost exclusively on “What can you offer me NOW?” If they weren’t, Germany would never have snuggled up to Russia, France would currently be blockading Britain, and Spain would have cut off the New World colonies which kicked them out. In the 30s and 40s, Ukrainians and Poles were genociding each other, independent of Nazi-led initiatives - now the relation between the two countries is very warm.
History matters for context - but speaking as a History Major, it rarely matters more than present circumstances.
Thank you for your well thought out response. I still think that there was no path to cooperation without a buy out. Even though both sides ostensibly were against the leaders of their opponents, Reagen would say were against the communist regime not the russians and kruschev would say they’re against the imperialist capitalists not the americans, how that was interpreted by the average person was just anti-american, anti-russian sentiment. In the 90s Russians either saw westerners as their cold war enemy or the carpet baggers looting their country.
The only way to win the Russians over would be a marshall plan like foreign aid package that would buy they’re loyalty. Stalin refused it in the 40s for ideological reasons but I doubt Yeltsin would turn down free money. It’s just that there was no political will in the west because there lingering antagonism towards Russia and the idea that liberal capitalism would solve all their problems. They will shell out huge sums for military aid for Ukraine, which again is justified, but if they had sent an equivalent sum to what we are sending now to Ukraine to Russia in the 90s I don’t think we’d be in this mess.
(Part 2 due to character limit)
Yes, definitely. NATO expansion has long been a goal of NATO hardliners, and NATO support in NATO countries has shot up to a degree few would have expected before Russia made the dubious decision of validating the purpose of the old alliance, which had become lethargic and uncertain in recent years.
What reason is there to exclude Ukraine from NATO once the war is over? Do you think the West wants to deal with a land-grab like this bullshit again, disrupting international markets? Or do you think we’d much prefer to station a token ‘tripwire’ force in Ukraine and ensure that Russia can’t do this bullshit again in ten years?
The EU I’m less informed on the nuances of, but it seems to me they’re pretty forward about opening a path to EU membership to Ukraine. I’d be more concerned on the EU trying to stall on including them in the Schengen Area than excluding them from the EU entirely.
I appreciate that you aren’t a tankie, or a Russian bootlicker, but sometimes national (or international) interests and the right thing line up. Western hegemony benefits most from countries deeply connected to the international market (ie Russia and Ukraine) NOT invading each other and disrupting world trade. As Russia is the aggressor, it is in the interests of the West to discourage further aggression, both practically (supporting Ukraine to end the war faster) and in principle (assuring other countries that their sovereignty will be reinforced in the case of blatant outside interference).