The reason I ask the second part is because I don’t know what his take on it is, if he thinks there is a deep-rooted, generational fear of Russian power in Europe dating back to great power politics with the Tsars or whether it is a constantly-changing geopolitical landscape that can be more malleable?
I’m of the latter opinion that each situation presents a set of policy tools that affect attitudes, maybe sometimes biased, but not deterministic.
You're assuming the claim on the current state is accurate. And when I say current state, I mean the state before Feb 24th 2022, since you're not relating it to the war. The reason after Feb 24th 2022 is obvious.
So, in what way did the West treat Russia like enemies before that?
This is important, since "the West" is not some homogenous entity. It's rather a term used by those who want to create a boogeyman.
How nice of 'the west' to poison all of Putin's enemies for him. Remember, the poisonings weren't done by Russians but false flags by the west to enact sanctions on Russia, because....profit?
And how nice of the west to plan a coup in Kiev that gives Crimea to Russia. Nope, not Russia's fault at all, they were 'forced' to expand their borders. 2022 was once again, not Russians being expansionist, but expansion of the Russian federation that was forced upon them by the 'evil west'.
My casual observation is that there are three Wests, each that kind of took their own position broadly over the last 20 years.
Old Europe
I'm borrowing this from Donald Rumsfeld. This would be mainly the French and the Germans, suspicious of U.S. leadership in the post-cold war order; not wanting a Russian hegemony in Europe but rather a Franco-German one, and at least ostensibly committed to trying to keep Russia somewhere in this space through gas pipelines and commercial deals, kind of hoping that nothing goes wrong.
New Europe
Poland, the Czechs, the Balts, all the countries that experienced Soviet occupation and kept their suspicions of Russia after Putin's ascendency. Why did they all flock to NATO? The only European countries in the Warsaw Pact to have not dictated its terms and not to have joined NATO is Belarus under Lukashenko, tiny Moldova, and now Ukraine which is under attack.
CANZUS-Japan
The outer Anglosphere and non-European West. Did we even have a Russian policy? With George W. Bush we went from "Pootie-Poot" to Obama in 2008 promising a "reset" of relations. Obama mocked Mitt Romney in the debates for having a cold war mentality, then after re-election sanctioned Russia. Trump was supposedly a Russian asset but sold Javelins to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't.
Nothing was stopping Russia from becoming a Western nation after the USSR collapsed. But they choose not to. Which is fine, they want to be poor, they can be poor. It was entirely a political choice by Putin and the Oligarchs.
The real problem started when all of the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations did want to become Western. They wanted to be wealthier, more secure. And, most importantly, not under the control of Moscow. So they leaned West. And Moscow saw that as an attack by the West on them. Which it wasn't. The West had no reason to rebuff those who were freed from Moscow's control, and had no desire to be taken back under control. Moscow can't free itself from the belief that their control of their 'sphere of interest' is not a natural right of theirs.
You want to solve the problem, end Moscow's imperial ambitions.
I think at its core America hurt the Russian government's feelings, and because Russia hasn't changed its leader in over 20 years there was no chance to get new blood in.
I think at its core America hurt the Russian government's feelings, and because Russia hasn't changed its leader in over 20 years there was no chance to get new blood in.
Russia wanted to be still treated as a great power
When you see all your protectorates leaving for the West but cannot accept that you are the main cause. Much easier to scapegoat NATO/ West for all of Russias problems
I’m increasingly convinced that Putin and “Putinism” have been made possible by the accumulation of resentments across the Russian society. Putinism has emerged from Russians’ inability to accept that they lost the Cold War because the Soviet Union could no longer compete.
Putinism is akin to the Dolchstoßlegende that emerged in Germany after its 1918 loss in World War I. It argued that the great German people were never defeated, but betrayed by cowardly politicians-stabbed in the back. That German legend fueled the German interwar national resentment.
Roughly within a decade after WWI the Dolchstoßlegende and the national resentment it fueled gave rise to Hitler and his attempt to re-litigate the outcome in 1918. Only the unequivocal defeat of Germany in 1945 buried the legend, foreclosing the path to empire through war.
At a risk of over-rationalizing history, I’d argue that for the past 30 yrs Russia has travelled a trajectory similar to that of interwar Germany. Putin’s neo-imperial aspirations are nested in a sea of Russian national resentment over loss of power & prestige on the world stage.
The Russian story that Putin has been pushing is one of the West, having taken advantage of Russia’s weak leaders (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc) robbed Russia of it glory to diminish its “velikiy russkiy narod,” (the great Russian people), that it is now poised to destroy Russian civilization.
If I’m right, the Russian threat to its neighbors and its neo-imperial drive will not end regardless whether Putin remains in power or not. In the long duree of Russian history, it can only break if Russia is decisively defeated in Ukraine- in a way that every Russian sees it
That’s why so much is riding on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. If Russia wins it will see this as a civilizational victory over the West. It will be emboldened to press on into Georgia, Moldova and down even breaching the NATO line.
But if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, the collapse of the legend of “velikiy russkiy narod” could unleash centrifugal forces in Russia that would foreclose its path to empire. It would be a period of instability & risk but it would offer Europe a path to peace.
@andrewmichta: 🧵I’m increasingly convinced that #Putin and “Putinism” have been made possible by the accumulation of resentments across the Russian society. #Putinism has emerged from Russians’ inability to accept t...…
Well, this thread can be thought of as a containment vessel to hopefully have it so you don’t need to repeat yourself.
I don’t know how much a discussion is ever fruitful, but at least it’s interesting. With regards to my personal feelings, I have admiration for Russia as a civilization for its contributions to art and culture, not withstanding the areas of politics.
In short, general enmity exists for centuries. You can read articles in Western newspapers and magazines from 19-th century, the "big bad bear" attitude hasn't changed much since then.
The reasons for this are IMO cultural differences and geopolitical rivalry. Both sides put the blame on each other, I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of replies like "because Russia is evil and hates freedom" in this thread.
In relation to current events, I was talking about hostile actions targeting ordinary Russian people. When people see or feel they are being hated, they'll hate you back. If you believe they'll put the blame on Putin, you are mistaken. Even if they do, it will happen despite western enmity, not because of it.
I don’t agree with it being a longstanding historical matter outside of the geopolitical contexts it was in; Britain in India, Japan in China, Germany on the western frontier. There might be cultural factors in it, but I don’t think Russia is unique in facing conflict with its neighbors—how much did the English and French fight? The French and the Germans. The French and the Spanish. The Spanish and the Dutch. The Swedes and the Germans. The Austrians and the Turks. The list goes on.
I think where this really falls apart is during the two world wars: Russia was on the combined side of the USA, Britain, and France in both of them. Do we have a cultural bias against German hegemony because of it?
I think where this really falls apart is during the two world wars: Russia was on the combined side of the USA, Britain, and France in both of them. Do we have a cultural bias against German hegemony because of it?
It was a situational alliance caused by having common powerful enemy. Which disappeared as soon as the wars ended and the enmity returned back immediately.
And why my original post was moved from the thread?
Swedes and Danes is the real historic grudge-match. For most of history there wasn't that much of a Germany there to fight to start with – bunch of other statelets in that space.
It was a situational alliance caused by having common powerful enemy. Which disappeared as soon as the wars ended and the enmity returned back immediately.
Sure, but if this enmity is so deep-seated, why not help the Germans? Worth noting that after both wars we are talking about Soviet Russia, then the Soviet Union, so not exactly on the best terms with the capitalist world anyway.
Side note as Stalin worried about this, an Anglo-German coalition to destroy the USSR, and tried to split off Germany from forming this alliance, part pragmatic and part ideological.
Sure, but if this enmity is so deep-seated, why not help the Germans? Worth noting that after both wars we are talking about Soviet Russia, then the Soviet Union, so not exactly on the best terms with the capitalist world anyway.
Speaking about 1941, it's kind of hard to help somebody you are already at war with.
Western Allies did their best to avoid hot war with Germany though, judging by Munich and Phoney War.
The enmity didn't let British-French-USSR alliance happen in 1938-1939, which would prevent WW2 altogether, at least in Europe.
I’m increasingly convinced that Putin and “Putinism” have been made possible by the accumulation of resentments across the Russian society. Putinism has emerged from Russians’ inability to accept that they lost the Cold War because the Soviet Union could no longer compete.
Putinism is akin to the Dolchstoßlegende that emerged in Germany after its 1918 loss in World War I. It argued that the great German people were never defeated, but betrayed by cowardly politicians-stabbed in the back. That German legend fueled the German interwar national resentment.
Roughly within a decade after WWI the Dolchstoßlegende and the national resentment it fueled gave rise to Hitler and his attempt to re-litigate the outcome in 1918. Only the unequivocal defeat of Germany in 1945 buried the legend, foreclosing the path to empire through war.
At a risk of over-rationalizing history, I’d argue that for the past 30 yrs Russia has travelled a trajectory similar to that of interwar Germany. Putin’s neo-imperial aspirations are nested in a sea of Russian national resentment over loss of power & prestige on the world stage.
The Russian story that Putin has been pushing is one of the West, having taken advantage of Russia’s weak leaders (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc) robbed Russia of it glory to diminish its “velikiy russkiy narod,” (the great Russian people), that it is now poised to destroy Russian civilization.
If I’m right, the Russian threat to its neighbors and its neo-imperial drive will not end regardless whether Putin remains in power or not. In the long duree of Russian history, it can only break if Russia is decisively defeated in Ukraine- in a way that every Russian sees it
That’s why so much is riding on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. If Russia wins it will see this as a civilizational victory over the West. It will be emboldened to press on into Georgia, Moldova and down even breaching the NATO line.
But if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, the collapse of the legend of “velikiy russkiy narod” could unleash centrifugal forces in Russia that would foreclose its path to empire. It would be a period of instability & risk but it would offer Europe a path to peace.
@andrewmichta: 🧵I’m increasingly convinced that #Putin and “Putinism” have been made possible by the accumulation of resentments across the Russian society. #Putinism has emerged from Russians’ inability to accept t...…
Fascism is, at heart, the absolute rejection that people's circumstances are their own fault.
The German soldiers who started the freecorps that led to the fascists and then Nazi movements could not accept that Germany was lost the war. It wasn't their fault. They were betrayed. The Russians that put and keep Putin in power cannot accept that it is their fault that the USSR collapsed, and Russia is no longer the core of an empire.
Fascism is, at heart, the absolute rejection that people's circumstances are their own fault.
The German soldiers who started the freecorps that led to the fascists and then Nazi movements could not accept that Germany was lost the war. It wasn't their fault. They were betrayed. The Russians that put and keep Putin in power cannot accept that it is their fault that the USSR collapsed, and Russia is no longer the core of an empire.
There's the small difference of those germans butchering around 30 million civilians, out of belief in a racial superiority theory.
Imo people shouldn't forget that.
That said, another thing not to be forgotten is how the first nation to trade openly with Germany just after ww2, was Stalin's Russia. Stalin was a monster too, of course.
There's the small difference of those germans butchering around 30 million civilians, out of belief in a racial superiority theory.
Imo people shouldn't forget that.
That said, another thing not to be forgotten is how the first nation to trade openly with Germany just after ww2, was Stalin's Russia. Stalin was a monster too, of course.
That just tells you that the Nazi fascists version of "All our problems are someone else's fault!!!" was basically racist. While Stalin was actually in control of half of Germany at the end of the War.
Speaking about 1941, it's kind of hard to help somebody you are already at war with.
Western Allies did their best to avoid hot war with Germany though, judging by Munich and Phoney War.
The enmity didn't let British-French-USSR alliance happen in 1938-1939, which would prevent WW2 altogether, at least in Europe.
Obviously it is the WEST fault that Russia had to ally itself with it arch-nemesis the Nazis
then it was the WEST fault that detail intel regarding Operation Barbarossa was provided and not believed
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
