When Clinton had talks with pisshead Yeltsin , they had an agreement that America would not expand NATO on to Russian borders with former members of the Soviet block being able to join, America agreed…which goes to show what their promises are worth.
Edit also find it funny they can’t do fuck all but retreat from Afghanistan against a bunch of shepherd’s in essence (I know they were trained previously by the CIA no surprises there) but trying to act tough weeks later against a country that has the most nukes and a strong army…and then their are the people , the Russians know more than most what cost the price of survival is , and are in no way to be dismissed, but the stupidity of western geopolitics is a joke
NATO exists only to a limit Soviet influence. In a post cold war era after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact it is a bit of an anachronism as long as Russia is kept outside. Continuing to invite former Soviet states is the sort of move where we only ignore that there is reasonable objection to it if we position ourselves as the good guys and therefore everything we do is for good.
The military objectives were met in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. It’s not a great example to use to highlight battle field failings. The issue there was having a desired political end point and no coherent strategy to achieving it once the military conflict was won other than leaving the military there to keep shooting people.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Putting oneself in a Russian head for a second, it’s only natural that they would look at NATO’s expansion towards the east with concern, especially as they are constantly considered by NATO as it’s natural enemy.
My take is that a huge trick was missed by the US and their allies in the nineties, when they could easily have integrated Russia within the NATO (it’s all they were asking for at the time). That would have put them in an excellent state now for their current struggles with China.
But obviously, they wanted to maintain a division between Russia and the rest of Europe in order to preserve their leader status of the ‘free world’, and that’s obviously their current position as well: they didn’t and still don’t want a strong, united Europe. Divide, and rule.
I am skeptical. Putin became President as early as 2000, and so was in positions of influence during that period. We see very clearly how reactionary he was to Obama’s attempts to strengthen ties with Russia under Medvedev, something he saw as weakening Russia. I get the feeling that this view was there and would have undercut anything Yeltzin tried to do with Clinton in the same way Trump and the GOP did with Obama’s international diplomacy (e.g. Iran nuclear agreement).
Remember when Schröder was Germany’s cancellor? There were serious links between Russia and Europe at the time, and some personal sympathies between Putin and some European leaders. But you’re right that Putin has always been anti-USA, since the off. His game has been to throw spanners between western Europe and the US in order to divide and weak them.
But still, had the US seriously tried to help Russia to join them as allies during the decade between the fall of the Warsaw pact and Putin’s arrival, instead of backing that corrupt drunkard Yeltsin, things could have been very different. That decade was and will remain as one of the biggest traumas in Russia’s history. Losing the whole social structure, the loss of national pride, falling prey to rampaging neo-capitalists and mafias, hundreds of thousands literally dying out in the cold… it must have been horrible.
During that long time, they received nothing but contempt from the US and their allies, who allowed their multinational companies to trade with Russian ressources, but ignored their plights while letting them feel that they were the losers.
Putin came to power on the basis of that traumatic decade, let’s not forget that. For many Russians, he’s still considered a hero for taking them out of that catastrophic state, despite of all his other shortcomings and tendencies towards authoritarianism. And almost 100% of them back his anti-US position. Honestly, I can understand them, because it’s deserved.
Let’s hope the current situation won’t lead to a war, because it would be catastrophic for all concerned.
I understand where you’re coming from, but Putin doesn’t get his power from the people. His political rise was not one of what we think of as traditionally political. It wasn’t like Obama, where some guy just generates a following and rides that to leadership. It was far more Stalinist where his power came from the way he positioned himself within the party and influenced (scared?) other power makers.
And I would counter your comment that he’s anti-USA and instead say his focus is pro-Imperialist Russia. So to the degree he is the former, it is only to the degree he needs to be to pursue to aims of the latter. And so I think whatever the moment was in the 90s that a return to an imperialist state becomes more distant as a result of becoming part of the world order, that strain, led by Putin would have risen and objected.
Yeah I agree with you, the remains of the state apparatus were still strong, and imperialistic anti-US nostalgic tendencies would have remained for a long time.
But you’ll have to agree with me that the US governments and their allies did everything possible to strengthen these tendencies, and to make them popular within the Russian population. As if they wanted to keep their ‘best enemy’ as such, instead of trying to turn him into a friend and ally, like they did with the former satellite states of the former USSR.
Whether they’d have succeeded with that is another question, but they didn’t even try.
One thing I don’t understand is why the US foreign policy seems to prioritise the interests of particular companies that can hardly claim to be doing anything in the interests of the US population at large.
Imperialist Russia? Mmmm, would that be the Russia that post-USSR sought European integration (Gorbachev)? The same Putin who in 2001 said Russia’s future was a European one? And who has driven those aims further and further apart?
Anyway where’s our invasion? Seems French and German intelligence are completely bewildered by US & UK information warfare, aka talking shite…
I agree. The norm would be that the local representatives of government (MP’s here, as in UK) would be voicing the concerns of their consituents to the House of Parliament. If enough of the constituents voice their concern, then enough MP’s would be raising that question to the House. That’s how it’s designed to run.
But it feels that in this case, the MP’s are someone bound by their party loyalties to follow the instructions of their party leadership and this is where the power of the election process is failed.
I think from a Russian perspective it might mean reneging on a promise not to recruit former Soviet countries into NATO , and then having military drills literally closer to the Russian border each year etc…maybe just maybe the Russians are feeling a bit threatened each year I mean they did have someone before trying to wipe them out, and maybe they just think rather wait to be attacked again, maybe it’s better to prepare and show any would be aggressors that this time they will be met head on ?
The West never made that promise though as far as i am aware. Its a line used to justify Russian aggression. The point about drills etc again sound more like self justification rather than genuine grievances…
The military drills close to Russia are tiny. The military drills Russia holds close to their neighbours are massive. There is no comparison really. The Zapad war mock exercises are gargantuan in size, and these are always hosted close to borders. NATO war mock exercises does not in any way compare in size. The Russians do not feel militarily threatened. Saying they feel threatened is not the same as actually feeling threatened.