21 ms·

How Russia Went from Ally to Adversary

25 points by wouterjanl 3y ago

unnouinceput 3y ago
Russia was never an ally, at best was a frenemy. 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 In every single country the USSR imposed an export-import type of firms, that "imported" Russian stuff, old and outdated from the 20's and 30's which were valued like they were the latest and greatest and exported that country best resource (be it gold, oil or grain).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.
simonblack 3y ago
Two words: Wolfowitz Doctrine. Note that the doctrine applies to all countries external to the USA. Which includes allies such as the EU.
eliotte 3y ago
https://archive.is/HomWJ https://archive.is/HomWJ
eliotte 3y ago
>By the logic of co-transformation, we urged brutal free-market policies on Eastern Europe, and then imposed them on ourselves. Having participated in the creation of the Russian monster, we are now forced to become monsters to battle it, to manufacture and sell more weapons, to cheer the death of Russian soldiers, to spend more and more on defense, both here and in Europe, and to create the atmosphere and conditions of a second Cold War, because we failed to figure out how to secure the peace after the last one. >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.
- medo-bear 3y ago
  It is also worth stating that the US set the precedent [in post-Cold War era - Edit] for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit. Some examples include: * 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.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    But bombing Serbia was a good thing, they were having a happy little genocide going and the US interfered. Similarly, the recognition of Kosovo is good in that context. Why are those in the list?
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      Both are illegal under international law
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        So is genocide.
        medo-bear 3y ago
        There were certainly war crimes in Kosovo committed by both the Albanian and Serbian sides [0], but legally none of it is genocide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the US set the precedent for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit 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_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I've yet to see any evidence that they were ever an ally. It is true that they went from Soviet communism to whatever half-assed dictatorship/oligarchy they have now, that change was real. But it was the same people who were our enemies, draped in different clothing... why would they have the warm fuzzies for us? Maybe if Clinton hadn't fucked up and had done a Marshall Plan for Russia, thing would be different.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan? I don’t think many Americans realize how tenuous the hold on power Russian politicians was in the 1990s.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan? Free shit.
- digitalengineer 3y ago
  'F*cked up???' "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-12.html https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-...
senectus1 3y ago
They have never been Allies. They just had aligned goals for a while.
- Gunax 3y ago
  There is probably some degree of aliterative appeal in 'ally to adversary'. But they were viewed as at least neutral in the 90s. Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.
- swores 3y ago
  Isn't that broadly what allies means in geopolitics? Not many relationships are considered allies where one or both sides are going against their own interests, at least in theory?
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    I get what you mean, but in this case, I'd ask under what circumstances Russia would come to the defense of the US. NATO is an alliance of allies in that sense.
    - gdy 3y ago
      Russia supported the US after the 9/11 attack.
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
medo-bear 3y ago
I think it is worth asking questions from the Realpolitik [0] school. For example, what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena? Its military? Well, besides nukes and subs, not really. Its hold on natural resources like fresh water, energy, forests, etc? I think this is a far more interesting aspect. Even if Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government, what would it mean for the US to have a powerful independent Russia as a competitor in a world where necessary natural resources are becoming more and more scarce? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
- throw-ru-938 3y ago
  > what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena? 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.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Russia still operates like an empire; Moscow pulls wealth and troops in from its periphery to its centre. The people getting rich off Russian resources aren’t—to my knowledge—Siberian. They’re tIt is uniquely difficult to imagine “Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government” in its current configuration.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    How does that answer the question posed?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > How does that answer the question posed? 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.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
I wonder if we had implemented a Marshall Plan, together with Europe, for the former Soviet Union, namely Russia, would it have (a) been accepted and (b) worked? 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.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  The Marshall Plan started in 1948. Germany was under US occupation until 1952. Which means any embezzlement of funds could be prosecuted directly by the occupiers. Try to send a few billion in Russia. How much do you expect to be stolen?
- OwlsParlay 3y ago
  Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan? It was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan? 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.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    To avoid, well, this. 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.
    - 3y ago
expertentipp 3y ago
Once Russian laughing gas stops flowing, things turn out to be really grim actually. The entire Germano-Russian Stasi-KGB swamp pulls bodies like a fierce deity.
Yizahi 3y ago
I see Ruzzian apologists are in force here, deploying ROCKWELL WHATABOUTER 9000 at full power. Imagine employing an "imperialist" label in attempt to defend Ruzzia in 2023, lol. I wonder if they believe the stuff they write or is it just a mega prank which got out of hand.
oneTbrain23 3y ago
Americans always eyeing to strip Russia of their resources. You can check out how much illegality with American troops selling just oil in Iraq and northern Syria. Russia has huge access to artic with methane ice reserve that exceeding multiple Saudi's oil reserve. Russia has uranium, gold, iron, rare earths, and tons of other minerals exceeding multiple USA. There is simply no possibility of Russia viewed as ally unless USA itself fractured into multiple countries (in some eastern prophecies this is a possibility - even John Titor mentioned it in his timeline - read the version copyrighted in Library of Congress and not subsequent addons).

25 points by wouterjanl 3y ago

Russia was never an ally, at best was a frenemy. 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.

simonblack 3y ago

Two words: Wolfowitz Doctrine. Note that the doctrine applies to all countries external to the USA. Which includes allies such as the EU.

eliotte 3y ago

https://archive.is/HomWJ https://archive.is/HomWJ

eliotte 3y ago

>By the logic of co-transformation, we urged brutal free-market policies on Eastern Europe, and then imposed them on ourselves. Having participated in the creation of the Russian monster, we are now forced to become monsters to battle it, to manufacture and sell more weapons, to cheer the death of Russian soldiers, to spend more and more on defense, both here and in Europe, and to create the atmosphere and conditions of a second Cold War, because we failed to figure out how to secure the peace after the last one. >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.

medo-bear 3y ago
It is also worth stating that the US set the precedent [in post-Cold War era - Edit] for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit. Some examples include: * 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.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  But bombing Serbia was a good thing, they were having a happy little genocide going and the US interfered. Similarly, the recognition of Kosovo is good in that context. Why are those in the list?
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    Both are illegal under international law
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      So is genocide.
      - medo-bear 3y ago
        There were certainly war crimes in Kosovo committed by both the Albanian and Serbian sides [0], but legally none of it is genocide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the US set the precedent for complete disregard of international (and even US) law for own benefit 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_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

I've yet to see any evidence that they were ever an ally. It is true that they went from Soviet communism to whatever half-assed dictatorship/oligarchy they have now, that change was real. But it was the same people who were our enemies, draped in different clothing... why would they have the warm fuzzies for us? Maybe if Clinton hadn't fucked up and had done a Marshall Plan for Russia, thing would be different.

atdrummond 3y ago
What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan? I don’t think many Americans realize how tenuous the hold on power Russian politicians was in the 1990s.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > What would have compelled them to cooperate with a Marshall Plan? Free shit.
digitalengineer 3y ago
'F*cked up???' "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-12.html https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-...

senectus1 3y ago

They have never been Allies. They just had aligned goals for a while.

Gunax 3y ago
There is probably some degree of aliterative appeal in 'ally to adversary'. But they were viewed as at least neutral in the 90s. Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.
swores 3y ago
Isn't that broadly what allies means in geopolitics? Not many relationships are considered allies where one or both sides are going against their own interests, at least in theory?
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  I get what you mean, but in this case, I'd ask under what circumstances Russia would come to the defense of the US. NATO is an alliance of allies in that sense.
  - gdy 3y ago
    Russia supported the US after the 9/11 attack.

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]

medo-bear 3y ago

I think it is worth asking questions from the Realpolitik [0] school. For example, what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena? Its military? Well, besides nukes and subs, not really. Its hold on natural resources like fresh water, energy, forests, etc? I think this is a far more interesting aspect. Even if Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government, what would it mean for the US to have a powerful independent Russia as a competitor in a world where necessary natural resources are becoming more and more scarce? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

throw-ru-938 3y ago
> what makes Russia objectively powerful in the international arena? 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.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Russia still operates like an empire; Moscow pulls wealth and troops in from its periphery to its centre. The people getting rich off Russian resources aren’t—to my knowledge—Siberian. They’re tIt is uniquely difficult to imagine “Russia is run by the most human-rights-respecting government” in its current configuration.
- medo-bear 3y ago
  How does that answer the question posed?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How does that answer the question posed? 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.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

I wonder if we had implemented a Marshall Plan, together with Europe, for the former Soviet Union, namely Russia, would it have (a) been accepted and (b) worked? 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.

credit_guy 3y ago
The Marshall Plan started in 1948. Germany was under US occupation until 1952. Which means any embezzlement of funds could be prosecuted directly by the occupiers. Try to send a few billion in Russia. How much do you expect to be stolen?
OwlsParlay 3y ago
Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan? It was in full asset stripping mode in the USA itself in the mid 90s
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why would the US want to do a Marshall plan? 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.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  To avoid, well, this. 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.
  - 3y ago

expertentipp 3y ago

Once Russian laughing gas stops flowing, things turn out to be really grim actually. The entire Germano-Russian Stasi-KGB swamp pulls bodies like a fierce deity.

Yizahi 3y ago

I see Ruzzian apologists are in force here, deploying ROCKWELL WHATABOUTER 9000 at full power. Imagine employing an "imperialist" label in attempt to defend Ruzzia in 2023, lol. I wonder if they believe the stuff they write or is it just a mega prank which got out of hand.

oneTbrain23 3y ago

Americans always eyeing to strip Russia of their resources. You can check out how much illegality with American troops selling just oil in Iraq and northern Syria. Russia has huge access to artic with methane ice reserve that exceeding multiple Saudi's oil reserve. Russia has uranium, gold, iron, rare earths, and tons of other minerals exceeding multiple USA. There is simply no possibility of Russia viewed as ally unless USA itself fractured into multiple countries (in some eastern prophecies this is a possibility - even John Titor mentioned it in his timeline - read the version copyrighted in Library of Congress and not subsequent addons).