3 ms·

Soft power in Russia would have been something along the lines of a Marshall Plan starting from the dissolution of the USSR, and could well have worked.

anamax 5y ago
And yet, the Euros didn't bother. You remember the Euros. They're constantly telling anyone who will listen that they (the Euros) have the world's largest economy (which is true by some measures, but seems to be irrelevant outside of the EU) and that soft power is more important, decisive even, in a modern world. And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. What's the reason this time (there's always an excuse): [1] The US stopped Euros from using soft-power. [2] The US kept said soft-power from working. [3] The US wouldn't pay its share. Yes, the good cop receives the results in good-cop/bad-cop, but that doesn't imply that the bad-cop was irrelevant.
- eynsham 5y ago
  This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming the Americans solely; of course not—this is the West’s mistake. > And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions. This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful. > Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant. As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.
  - anamax 5y ago
    You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
    - eynsham 5y ago
      I’m not really sure what the point of your comment is then. At best you show that not properly trying soft power was only the EU’s fault. All right—my initial point is that it’s a bit silly to dismiss soft power if it wasn’t tried properly. But that point is also wrong, since it seems predicated on US policymakers getting off the hook because they read some possibly inextant EU propaganda about how it can do everything; imagine if Chinese policymakers actually took what Americans say about themselves at face value! > Instead, I put this all on the Euros. Unless you’re a complete isolationist (which is at least a consistent position), Russia is your problem too. I am perfectly happy to note that the fact that someone else failed to act doesn’t excuse one’s own inaction. But that applies symmetrically: the European failure to act hardly justifies yours. And taking any EU pronouncements claiming strategic autonomy seriously is a mug’s game. > (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) Well, I also think of the Russians as my own—they used to speak fairly good French. I don’t care to apportion ‘credit’; my original point is that we (both the US and EU) never properly tried soft power. > It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. I’m not sure that we did or do, generally. These days, we talk about working towards strategic autonomy—about e.g. starting a European army or similar. But EU politicians generally don’t claim that we have achieved it—some merely think it’s a good idea to work towards it. And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. > I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US. In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.

anamax 5y ago

And yet, the Euros didn't bother. You remember the Euros. They're constantly telling anyone who will listen that they (the Euros) have the world's largest economy (which is true by some measures, but seems to be irrelevant outside of the EU) and that soft power is more important, decisive even, in a modern world. And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. What's the reason this time (there's always an excuse): [1] The US stopped Euros from using soft-power. [2] The US kept said soft-power from working. [3] The US wouldn't pay its share. Yes, the good cop receives the results in good-cop/bad-cop, but that doesn't imply that the bad-cop was irrelevant.

eynsham 5y ago
This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming the Americans solely; of course not—this is the West’s mistake. > And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions. This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful. > Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant. As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.
- anamax 5y ago
  You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
  - eynsham 5y ago
    I’m not really sure what the point of your comment is then. At best you show that not properly trying soft power was only the EU’s fault. All right—my initial point is that it’s a bit silly to dismiss soft power if it wasn’t tried properly. But that point is also wrong, since it seems predicated on US policymakers getting off the hook because they read some possibly inextant EU propaganda about how it can do everything; imagine if Chinese policymakers actually took what Americans say about themselves at face value! > Instead, I put this all on the Euros. Unless you’re a complete isolationist (which is at least a consistent position), Russia is your problem too. I am perfectly happy to note that the fact that someone else failed to act doesn’t excuse one’s own inaction. But that applies symmetrically: the European failure to act hardly justifies yours. And taking any EU pronouncements claiming strategic autonomy seriously is a mug’s game. > (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) Well, I also think of the Russians as my own—they used to speak fairly good French. I don’t care to apportion ‘credit’; my original point is that we (both the US and EU) never properly tried soft power. > It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. I’m not sure that we did or do, generally. These days, we talk about working towards strategic autonomy—about e.g. starting a European army or similar. But EU politicians generally don’t claim that we have achieved it—some merely think it’s a good idea to work towards it. And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c. > I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US. In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.