3 ms·

The 90s really weren't courtesy of the West. I understand this line of thinking, and I don't want to suggest that the West's handling of Russia in the collapse

by nooron 10y ago

The 90s really weren't courtesy of the West. I understand this line of thinking, and I don't want to suggest that the West's handling of Russia in the collapse of the Soviet union was ideal. I know that it wasn't. But the idea that west successfully privatized Russia in the malignant way you describe would require the existence of institutions powerful enough to enact such a change in the collapsing Soviet union. This has no basis in fact. The West did not have this kind of influence, in large measure because the West did not have viable agents or institutions to mediate such power. The truth is that the kind of plunder that occurred was a natural consequence of the Soviet economic order, as well as the lack of institutions (and norms) required to sustain a functioning market. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, please do reach out to me via email – it's in my profile. I'd be really happy to talk more about this topic, and even send you a book or two on it!

Mikeb85 10y ago
Some books have been written on the subject by a great many figures, and while my comment may be slightly hyperbolic, it's not entirely wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html While I don't think the west necessarily intended for the Russian economy to collapse, they definitely tried to impose certain policies on Russia in an attempt to remake it into an American-style capitalist state, 'shock therapy' and the 'Washington consensus' were real things that were prescribed, and of course there was also military action taken to weaken Russia's influence as well (NATO expansion). Anyhow, there were a number of American economic advisers who worked for the Russian government during the 1990's, and to say they had no influence is plain wrong.
- nooron 10y ago
  I'm happy to talk about the ways in which NATO expansion was a questionable choice, as I am inclined to agree, but that's not what you originally contended. Russia had a Rust Belt orders of magnitude larger than the United States. It had a factory system optimized on quotas decades out of date. It had no real infrastructure for resolving economic disputes in legal terms. It had a factory manager class with little accountability. You say these Americans worked for the Russian government. What departments? Do you think those departments had adequate control of their own police forces to enforce such policies? How do you suppose these forces would have been funded? My point is that you are mistaken about the extent to which a Russian state was a viable entity during this period. Without an effective state, there is no real way for the west to exert the kind of influence you describe. The Washington Consensus was real, and its importance exaggerated by its exponents in the US. To say Americans had substantial influence on Russian economic policy is indeed plain wrong. I would be honored to send you a copy of some books that explain this, and include abundant primary source documentation of my claims. Please feel free to email me at my address as listed in my profile. I think you might really enjoy a copy of Armageddon Averted by Kotkin. It is a very enjoyable account of this era, and it quite deftly addresses your contention.
  - hn_123 10y ago
    Perhaps decades later ex CIA operatives in their memoirs might reveal the extent to which the agency was present and involved in the events during that period. It's naive to think otherwise considering they were all over various banana republics with much less at stake.. Time will tell.
    - nooron 10y ago
      The CIA had virtually zero footprint in Russia throughout the Cold War. All in all, it is not a remarkably effective institution for collecting human intelligence or for sabotage – the United States IC is far superior with signals intel. Much of our history as a nation over the last 50 years reflects this; consider, who brought Khrushchev's secret speech to the United States? It wasn't a CIA officer or asset. It is very naïve to think that the CIA is as potent as you do.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  You seem to be assuming that there was a much better path that Russia could have followed, and that if the US had stayed out, it had leaders with the intelligence and good motivation to carry it out. I find that quite dubious. For leaders it had Yeltsin who you have to admit was quite incompetent, and a bunch of greedy old Soviet officials who had been responsible for the collapse of the USSR. The liberals were weak and disorganized, and the public was simply lost. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that you, like many, believe the West is not only entirely evil, but is the source of all the evil in the world. If I an reading you wrong, please make clear what you do actually believe.
disordinary 10y ago
What really is a shame is the waste, a number of industries collapsed simply because of negligence and greed, not just in Russia but throughout the former soviet block. Quite a lot of factories were very specialised and one of only a few in the world, instead of building industries locally they were sold to foreign companies (the examples I know of were Indian so it's not just US) where they were promptly shut. They were bought simply so that there wasn't competition. A lot of effort and blood went into building the soviet union and it was very sad to see a lot of that work simply thrown away.

by nooron 10y ago

Mikeb85 10y ago

Some books have been written on the subject by a great many figures, and while my comment may be slightly hyperbolic, it's not entirely wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html While I don't think the west necessarily intended for the Russian economy to collapse, they definitely tried to impose certain policies on Russia in an attempt to remake it into an American-style capitalist state, 'shock therapy' and the 'Washington consensus' were real things that were prescribed, and of course there was also military action taken to weaken Russia's influence as well (NATO expansion). Anyhow, there were a number of American economic advisers who worked for the Russian government during the 1990's, and to say they had no influence is plain wrong.

nooron 10y ago
I'm happy to talk about the ways in which NATO expansion was a questionable choice, as I am inclined to agree, but that's not what you originally contended. Russia had a Rust Belt orders of magnitude larger than the United States. It had a factory system optimized on quotas decades out of date. It had no real infrastructure for resolving economic disputes in legal terms. It had a factory manager class with little accountability. You say these Americans worked for the Russian government. What departments? Do you think those departments had adequate control of their own police forces to enforce such policies? How do you suppose these forces would have been funded? My point is that you are mistaken about the extent to which a Russian state was a viable entity during this period. Without an effective state, there is no real way for the west to exert the kind of influence you describe. The Washington Consensus was real, and its importance exaggerated by its exponents in the US. To say Americans had substantial influence on Russian economic policy is indeed plain wrong. I would be honored to send you a copy of some books that explain this, and include abundant primary source documentation of my claims. Please feel free to email me at my address as listed in my profile. I think you might really enjoy a copy of Armageddon Averted by Kotkin. It is a very enjoyable account of this era, and it quite deftly addresses your contention.
- hn_123 10y ago
  Perhaps decades later ex CIA operatives in their memoirs might reveal the extent to which the agency was present and involved in the events during that period. It's naive to think otherwise considering they were all over various banana republics with much less at stake.. Time will tell.
  - nooron 10y ago
    The CIA had virtually zero footprint in Russia throughout the Cold War. All in all, it is not a remarkably effective institution for collecting human intelligence or for sabotage – the United States IC is far superior with signals intel. Much of our history as a nation over the last 50 years reflects this; consider, who brought Khrushchev's secret speech to the United States? It wasn't a CIA officer or asset. It is very naïve to think that the CIA is as potent as you do.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
woodandsteel 10y ago
You seem to be assuming that there was a much better path that Russia could have followed, and that if the US had stayed out, it had leaders with the intelligence and good motivation to carry it out. I find that quite dubious. For leaders it had Yeltsin who you have to admit was quite incompetent, and a bunch of greedy old Soviet officials who had been responsible for the collapse of the USSR. The liberals were weak and disorganized, and the public was simply lost. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that you, like many, believe the West is not only entirely evil, but is the source of all the evil in the world. If I an reading you wrong, please make clear what you do actually believe.

disordinary 10y ago

What really is a shame is the waste, a number of industries collapsed simply because of negligence and greed, not just in Russia but throughout the former soviet block. Quite a lot of factories were very specialised and one of only a few in the world, instead of building industries locally they were sold to foreign companies (the examples I know of were Indian so it's not just US) where they were promptly shut. They were bought simply so that there wasn't competition. A lot of effort and blood went into building the soviet union and it was very sad to see a lot of that work simply thrown away.