3 ms·

> A few different decisions throughout the 90s would have brought Russia into the EU and Western world and not in the direction it’s headed nowadays. That's qu

> A few different decisions throughout the 90s would have brought Russia into the EU and Western world and not in the direction it’s headed nowadays. That's quite a claim. What evidence do you have that a few simple decisions could have reversed the last several hundred years of Russian geopolitics being focused on westward expansion?

keiferski 2y ago
Well I didn’t say “simple”, I said a few decisions. I think if America had acted differently, and if the transition to capitalism had gone differently, it’s not a stretch that Russia would be more aligned with Western Europe. Here’s an interesting answer about how capitalism was implemented in Poland vs. Russia, that is relevant. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ayjz4d/why_was_polands_transition_to_capitalism_so_much/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ayjz4d/why_w... Clinton himself also expressed regrets at the way the relationship progressed. https://www.rferl.org/a/declassified-clinton-memo-russian-relations/32455950.html https://www.rferl.org/a/declassified-clinton-memo-russian-re... Overall it’s a long answer and would also include things like the established bureaucracy in Washington being comprised of Cold Warriors, the US bombing of Serbia (a long time Russian ally) during the Yugoslav wars, and a number of other geopolitical decisions. And while you’re right that Russian imperial ambitions were their dominant foreign policy, don’t forget that they also looked West for cultural leadership - many of the Romanovs spoke French as a first language, and the existence of Petersburg is entirely a Westernization project. I think it’s more accurate to describe Russian history as a battle between Westernizers and non-Westernizers, and it could have gone the other way very plausibly.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  But your own solution brings up the very same problem. You talk about the bombing of Serbia as something that caused this. But the alternative is to not intervene in Serbia because we recognize a Russian sphere of influence there. That is entirely the root of the problem. Russia wants a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and that is not acceptable to any of the countries there or NATO allies in Western Europe. The only ways to ally with Russia and Western Europe simultaneously are to either get Western Europe to agree to a Russian sphere to their east (impossible after the USSR fell), or to get Russia to accept that it is no longer a great power and rather simply the equal of France or Germany and therefore not entitled to its sphere of influence as the US is. None of the things you bring up address this fundamental conflict.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Sure I agree that the geopolitics would still be complicated. But I think had a few decisions been made differently, the US could have maneuvered Russia into being an ally against China, in a kind of reverse situation from the Cold War.

keiferski 2y ago

Well I didn’t say “simple”, I said a few decisions. I think if America had acted differently, and if the transition to capitalism had gone differently, it’s not a stretch that Russia would be more aligned with Western Europe. Here’s an interesting answer about how capitalism was implemented in Poland vs. Russia, that is relevant. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ayjz4d/why_was_polands_transition_to_capitalism_so_much/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ayjz4d/why_w... Clinton himself also expressed regrets at the way the relationship progressed. https://www.rferl.org/a/declassified-clinton-memo-russian-relations/32455950.html https://www.rferl.org/a/declassified-clinton-memo-russian-re... Overall it’s a long answer and would also include things like the established bureaucracy in Washington being comprised of Cold Warriors, the US bombing of Serbia (a long time Russian ally) during the Yugoslav wars, and a number of other geopolitical decisions. And while you’re right that Russian imperial ambitions were their dominant foreign policy, don’t forget that they also looked West for cultural leadership - many of the Romanovs spoke French as a first language, and the existence of Petersburg is entirely a Westernization project. I think it’s more accurate to describe Russian history as a battle between Westernizers and non-Westernizers, and it could have gone the other way very plausibly.

fallingknife 2y ago
But your own solution brings up the very same problem. You talk about the bombing of Serbia as something that caused this. But the alternative is to not intervene in Serbia because we recognize a Russian sphere of influence there. That is entirely the root of the problem. Russia wants a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and that is not acceptable to any of the countries there or NATO allies in Western Europe. The only ways to ally with Russia and Western Europe simultaneously are to either get Western Europe to agree to a Russian sphere to their east (impossible after the USSR fell), or to get Russia to accept that it is no longer a great power and rather simply the equal of France or Germany and therefore not entitled to its sphere of influence as the US is. None of the things you bring up address this fundamental conflict.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Sure I agree that the geopolitics would still be complicated. But I think had a few decisions been made differently, the US could have maneuvered Russia into being an ally against China, in a kind of reverse situation from the Cold War.