Bush and Putin shake hands at the 2006 G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg
In case you missed it...
The Icon and the Eagle
Henry A. Kissinger
Tribune Media Services
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Ambivalence characterizes relations between Russia and the United States. President Vladimir Putin snipes at American conduct and policies, while his foreign minister reaffirms Russia's interest in a partnership with the United States. Washington seeks Russian assistance on nonproliferation while pursuing policies on Russia's borders that Moscow and many Russians consider highly provocative.
In the meantime, both countries are threatened by radical Islam; cooperation between the nuclear powers of the world is imperative, and an emerging set of issues — like environment and climate change — can only be solved on a global basis.
Given the extent to which their national interests have become interconnected, neither side can want or, indeed, afford a new Cold War.
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on the phone in 1975
Photo by: The George Washington University website
The two countries have reached this point under presidents who took office nearly contemporaneously and will leave it about the same time. Remarkably, the personal relationship between the two presidents has remained much more constructive than the overall relationship.
To the extent that personal trust can shape policies, the two presidents have an opportunity to use their remaining months in office to overcome some of the tensions that have weakened the basis for long-term cooperation.
The estrangement falls into two categories: on the American side, disenchantment with domestic trends in Russia, disappointment in Russia's foot-dragging on the nuclear issue in Iran and reservations about the abrupt way Russia has dealt with the now independent former parts of the Russian Empire.
On the Russian side, there is a sense that America takes Russia for granted, demands consideration of its difficulties but is unwilling to respect those of Russia, starts crises without adequate consultation and intervenes unacceptably in the domestic affairs of Russia.
Though each side's complaints are to some extent justified, the difficulty in resolving them reflects a vast difference in historical experience.
In the 19th century, acting on the surface in parallel, both countries devoted much of their national energies to expanding into contiguous, thinly settled regions.
But there was an essential difference. America's expansion was carried out by men and women who turned their backs on their countries of origin to shape their individual futures.
Russia's pioneers arrived in conquered territories in the rear of armies, while the indigenous populations were absorbed into the Empire. Almost all the cities in southern Ukraine and, of course, St. Petersburg were created by czars who moved thousands forcibly into newly conquered regions.
The vastness of the territories and the openness of the frontiers produced a claim to exceptionalism in both countries. But American exceptionalism was based on individual fulfillment, Russia's on a mystical sense of national mission.
America's exceptionalism produced an essentially isolationist foreign policy, interrupted occasionally by moral crusades. Russia's exceptionalism expressed itself in military expansion. Between Peter the Great and Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia expanded from the heartland of Slavic Russia to the center of Europe, the shores of the Pacific and deep into Central Asia.
Until the end of World War II, Russia and America rarely interacted on a global basis.
America felt secure behind two great oceans, at least until the emergence of Russian long-range missiles and perhaps until 9/11. Russia, with no natural borders, especially in the West, considered itself permanently threatened.
America identified normalcy and peace with the spread of its political values and institutions; Russia sought it through a security belt in contiguous territory. The more polyglot the Russian Empire became, the more vulnerable Russian leaders felt, until expansion turned into a defining characteristic of the Empire.
This dichotomy explains the psychological tensions of recent years. To America, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a vindication of fundamental democratic values; to most Russians — even anti-Soviet Russians — the disintegration of empire is a shocking affront to Russian identity.
To Americans, the 1990s in Russia were a period of reform and progress. Most Russians view them as a time of humiliation, corruption and national decline. Many Americans criticize Putin for reverting to an autocratic system. His supporters would argue that Russia's immediate priority must be the restoration of its international standing. That perception, according to independent polls, seems to be shared by a large majority of Russians.
Putin sees himself in the tradition of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, who established Russia as a great power. Autocratic beyond the standards of even 18th-century monarchies, they nevertheless considered themselves reformers who would drag a backward country and recalcitrant population into the modern period.
For Russia to regain its historical status, America is in many respects the most desirable partner. Russia will stop short of making Asia the focal point of its policy, partly because China itself would shrink from such a partnership. Russia's ties with Europe are traditional, but Europe, until its unity is further advanced, is highly reluctant to accept the risks that may be needed to overcome radical jihad or to pose the penalties and rewards to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Strategically, the United States and Russia are very important to each other. Yet a new constructive relationship between America and Russia will require the modification of two traditional attitudes: the American tendency to insist on global tutelage and the Russian proclivity to emphasize raw power in the conduct of diplomacy.
As the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia have a special responsibility for nonproliferation.
Iran is the key. The haggling over Security Council tactics needs to be brought to a conclusion. Is Russia striving for a special position in Iran and, if so, to what purpose? Is there a different assessment of the imminence of an Iranian nuclear capability?
The most sensitive psychological aspect of America's relations with Russia concerns what Russians call the "near abroad": the new independent states that were once part of the Russian empire. Many Russians find it difficult to think of them as entirely foreign countries and react truculently to what they consider American attempts to infringe on historical patterns.
This issue requires restraint on both sides. As someone who strongly supported the expansion of NATO to its present limits, I am uneasy about pushing these territorial limits even further outward except under extreme provocation.
At the same time, Russia must understand that America is bound to consider the genuine independence of these countries, like Ukraine and Georgia, as an essential component of a peaceful international order.
A major challenge is the degree to which Russia's internal evolution should affect U.S.-Russian relations.
Russian leaders must understand that the American public is as shaped by its national history as is Russia by its own. America will always judge other societies, to some extent, by their respect for human rights.
When the line is crossed from advocacy to overt pressure, more intractable issues arise. Russia's internal condition necessarily is an amalgam of its autocratic, historic past and the new opportunities generated by the collapse of the communist ideological system.
A Western-style democratic political system cannot quickly emerge from the building blocks of Russia's political past; new vistas are needed. Putin's Russia is an inherently transitory synthesis produced by the impact of the USSR's closed system on the requirements of a globalizing world.
This synthesis combines elements of Russia's historic authoritarian, centralized bureaucratic state and the new opportunities opened up through a cooperative relationship with a unifying Europe and a friendly America.
For the moment, the authoritarian, centralizing aspects are dominant, though arguably less so than in any previous period of Russian history.
The goal of sound U.S. policy should be to maximize incentives for Russia's evolution to become more compatible with democratic norms. The dominant factors shaping this evolution will be domestic, not external.
Overreaching efforts to determine political evolution in Russia will be more likely to strengthen authoritarian tendencies than the reverse.
In that spirit, a relationship between Russia and the United States that goes from removing frictions to active cooperation will make a major contribution to peace, progress and stability.
Comments
The article digs deep into Russia’s past problems, and they are partly fair. But later it states that western-style democratic political system can’t emerge from Russia's past? Silly, very silly. As usual, like so many anti Russian articles, this thing is written with one eye open.
The Shah of Iran was placed into power by the US and other Western partners in a coup. At that time, the US was vigorously planning and financing the construction of several nuclear power plants in Iran.
No different than a couple of decades ago when a US rocket company was trying to sell rocket engines to an Indian company, only to be out bid by a Russian company.
In both cases, Russia implemented exactly the same policy as the US, and America cried fowl. Nuclear non proliferation has nothing to do with it. It’s just business, and America dilutes genuine international efforts by inducing such fake personal agendas. Today, we have terrorism because America can’t play fair and can’t even stick to the rules she made.
The very tools that some Russians Mafia guy might use when he losses a business deal seem to be used when ever America loses a rocket engine sale or losses access to Iranian civilian nuke markets. Shame on America to use such Mafioso tools in politics. Are global business deals this difficult for the US that she needs to "strong arm"?
Bottom line, today, we are paying for Kissinger’s internship and knowledge acquisition in foreign affairs. Now Dr Rice has expanded previous incompetence with a new SURGE of failures. The US never could stand an equal playing field.
Sure Russia and the US would make great partners, and with other nations we could have a great “wolf pack” that would make stability in the world. But you can bet your life that America will follow her interests only. Russia, Asia, and the EU had better count their fingers after shaking hands with the US. And to this, the failure of US / Russian relations is do to the necessity of American domination. America thinks she is the boss, and for this reason she runs from such institutions as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Personally, I feel Russia must go it alone, with out the US. Russia must join with traditional US allies and use her energy wealth as an incentive to nurture such alignments. The US makes a lousy partner today as she has so many problems pent up for some catastophy.
Success breads success, and failure breads failure, to this end, the international community must keep it’s distance until America has a couple of years of working down debts, reversing the Iraq decline and finds at least one gram of wmd in Iraq.
I’m not a politician or an economist, just a software engineer. But I’m sick of listening to Kissinger or Rice yap about world affairs when so much has failed on thier watch.
The problems with Russia / US relations have nothing to do with Russia. The problem is the US.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 3, 2007 12:35 PM
Luther you could have save a lot of time if you just posted "The problem is the US" and been done with it. We don't need you to back up your arguement, because it is the same on every post you make.
So you hate the US, we get the point. Why you must expose us to your anti-americanism constantly on a blog about Russia is anyone's guess though. Quite frankly, you are the bizarro world equivalent of Kim Zigfeld.
As for the post, I am not a big fan of Kissinger but I thought this column of his was pretty fair to both sides, or as fair as its going to get, coming from an American. It would be great if both countries could get along, but its just not going to ever happen. Russians are always going to be xenophobic and Americans are always going to be overbearing. It's just the way it is.
Posted by: Jason H | April 5, 2007 11:20 AM
Luther,
Are you really a fan of Hugo Chavez? Just curious.
Posted by: Charles Ganske | April 5, 2007 3:27 PM
To Jason H
At risk of meddling into another delightful dialogue between you and Luther, I would like to venture an explanation as to the so-called US-bashing and what not.
See, Jason, just because one criticizes US, it does not make him a ‘US hater’, or ‘Putin’s crony’ as some have suggested, just as your critique of Russia does not make you a Bush-crony and/or Russia’s hater.
I am a citizen of USA. I live, work, and pay my taxes (too many taxes) in USA. It is a great nation in many respects. There are still a lot of opportunities one can take an advantage of. However, there are also many problems and disturbing trends and tendencies that I observe in the way this country is run, both locally and on federal level. I know that Luther’s rhetoric seems a bit harsh at times. As a red-blooded patriotic American that you are, Jason, (so I assume) it’s hard to take.
But there’s a difference between legitimate criticism based on facts, and just spiteful hatred. I don’t think that Luther hates USA. I believe that he is grieved, just as I am, to see this great nation on course to disaster and failure, the contributing factors to which include but are not limited to our monetary policy and foreign policy. All we have is differing opinions on the overall outlook, nothing more. Our allegiances are the same. It does not divide us into camps of pro-US and anti-US.
Just as a Republican and Democrat may hate each other’s faces -- yet they are both American. It’s just that their views on how things should be done differ. This difference in opinion may drive them to clutch at each other’s throats in blind murderous rage, but both equally love the star-spangled banner and the apple pie. Both want to see our fellow Americans brought back home safe and sound from the hell-hole that is Iraq.
See, Islamo-fascists are anti-US. Luther is not anti-US.
Why bring this up on Russia’s blog? Well, we are discussing economic and cultural progresses/setbacks of a nation that was once a rival to USA. One can’t help but start comparing the two. Personally I wish peace and prosperity to both countries, and true cooperation between the two would be most welcome. Granted, one can get carried away in such comparisons, diverging from the topic greatly. The blog is, after all, called Russia blog. But we all have sinned in this manner, haven’t we?
Posted by: Al Goroh | April 6, 2007 1:46 AM
Charles,
Do I like Chavez?
Well, it shouldn't matter as I'm not a Venezuelan citizen, and he holds a mandate from his people. I believe he received in one of the elections as high as 80% popular vote. Not so high the last round, but still has a majority. Spanish was my first language so I try to listen to some of his speeches. And because he was democratically elected then he is legitimate. Why does the US have an issue with democracies that aren't pro-Yankee?
But to answer your question, I think every nation on the planet should have their own Ronald Reagan, their own nationalist. I respect Chavez with how he sticks with his constitution, and the fact that his protection of Venezuelan energy reserves for his nation, just like Reagan nationalism.
But he's dead wrong on things like price controls. There are some things he's doing that I don't like and I hope he's using these tools only temporarily. But the gentleman was elected, even after a US coup, and a US founded recall election. Now that I think about, heck, we haven't tried the colored revolution methodology... lets send in some US state department consultants from that great Ukrainian colored revolution.
Respectfully
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 6, 2007 7:14 AM
Jason H,
I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-failure and I'm anti-hypocrisy.
I voted republican for more than 20 years. I think every country should have their own nationalist Ronald Reason.
Bush got my first vote, but later he lost me, and I changed my registration from republican to democrat the moment he said the "WMD" word. It was so obvious that he was lying. Even before the war started I was pissed, I even lost a few republican friends that were insulted that I could not smoke the same stuff they were smoking to see these fair tails and delusion.
I'm like one of those guys that left Enron right before the storm hit. This isn't about being a team player, it's about drawing the line when others become corrupt. And US actions are corrupt.
Sorry, but I really believe in the America message of democracy and human rights and transparency. And when America quit these values and virtues, I was done. If my family and I can't have opportunity, freedom and democracy in America, then it will be elsewhere.
Bush reminds me of a guy that had a bad day at work (9/11), but he couldn't attack those responsible (lack of brains or stength) like his boss (Saudi Arabia / Bin Laden), so he goes home and kicks the crap out of the wife (allies), kids (US domestic policy), and dog (Iraq).
Yea, I don't see wmd in Iraq, and can't see one good thing of any colored revolutions, Nato expansion, coups against Chavez, calling me anti-American is a convenient way of avoiding reality and covering up US failures.
As for Russia / US relations, well, I think long term the US will be marginalized and it will be irrelevant. Yesterday we got a Wall Street Journal article that Mexico's Cantarell oil field is dieing, dropping 10% each year. And since most of Mexico's oil export market is the US, then I equate that to 10% drop in US delusions each year, 10% drop in Nato effectiveness each year, 10% drop in colored revolutions... etc...
Eventualy we will see 10% increase in world peace each year... 'bring it on'.
Respectfully
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 6, 2007 7:41 AM
Luther,
You are correct that Chavez was initially democratically elected, though I have heard too many stories from Venezuelans personally to accept him as the leader of a democratic state who is playing with a full deck. I have heard from Venezuelans who watched him gleefully fire all govmt employees who signed the recall referendum live on national television, reading out there names, and also from a Venezuelan whose mother was shot by Chavista thugs during a peaceful protest. In addition to amending the constitutiono to extend his term (something Putin has steadfastly refused to do) Chavez now appears to be ruling largely by decree.
The fact is that the vast majority of Venezuela's oil, like Mexico, also goes to the U.S., and PDVSA's production has declined steeply under Chavez (while Russian oil and gas production has increased since 2000).
Unlike the Peak Oil enthusiasts, I don't think this can be attributed to simple geology, but to a brain drain and a lack of capital to develop Venezuela's heavy oil resources. Chavez seems to think that Canadian expertise and Chinese capital will develop the Orinoco belt, and in the long run he could be right, but he's going to need more than a third and fourth term to see that happen.
Anyway, my purpose was not to pick a fight (who has time for that?) but just to point out that many of the same statements you make about Mexico depending on the U.S. for its export market apply to Venezuela as well.
Now we definitely should get back to discussing Russia, but it is interesting to contrast how Putin has successfully exploited Russia's natural resources to improve the economy versus how Chavez has made inflation, brain drain, capital flight and other economic problems in Venezuela worse. I made this comparison when criticizing a flakey article in Newsweek International that basically said that Iran would emerge as a great alternative source of natural gas for the Caucuses republics instead of Russia. Robert Amsterdam has been promoting this idea as well, as if the Islamic Republic is a more reliable long term source of gas for Europe than Russia.
http://www.russiablog.org/2007/01/money_not_geopolitics_drives_r.php
I said that this would be like insisting that Mexico seek energy independence from the U.S. natural gas network (Mexico is a net importer of gas from the U.S.) by tying itself to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as a great stable supplier (Iran has even worse problems than Venezuela in terms of developing its heavily subsidized domestic market and decaying infrastructure - and again, like Chavez, the mullahs imagine that the Chinese will bail them out). China is simply going to chase the best deal for energy wherever they can find it, and if Angola is a more profitable deal than Iran, they'll go there.
Posted by: Charles Ganske | April 6, 2007 8:05 AM
Charles,
Well, Chavez is not using eloquent language, he isn't beatifying his words, in fact, I tend to like sarcasm, I like M*A*S*H and George Carlin because they can take absurd things that are happening and make them a joke in hopes of waking people up to save the country... they question authority and they go against the grain when they know something is really bad. To this, Chavez should be more like Putin. But I like Chavez because he's in Bush's face. And there ain't one thing Bush can do about it.
As to pro-Chavez thugs in Venezuela killing ? Boy, I could come up with one long list of people who suffered or died in the last 6 years. And on the political front, many, many people lost careers, health and lives trying to keep America fair. People like Ray McGovern, George Galloway (of the UK), these are patriots.
http://www.ipenergy.com/media/GeorgeGalloway/George_Galloway-full.wmv
As for PDVSA in decline, it's good for business. I hate to sound sarcastic, but the less oil, the higher the prices, then the more innovation we will have. Oil and Gas in the ground should be considered saving in your 401k, don't tough it !!!! And the less oil the US economy has, the less NGO money gets spread around over throwing legitimate democracies. And I firmly believe, it is better to use beurocracy for managing depleting resources. When the gov is involved in oil / gas management, the slower the extraction of energy will be...
Don't get used to Russia's increases, those will soon be consumed at home. At this point, when today's generation starts talking about leaving some oil / gas for future generations, inefficient gov organization guarantee that such energy will be there for our grandchildren... High performance business models belong in software dev, IT, fusion research, small business, consumerism, aviation, auto... not energy extraction.
The US has no capability of creating new laws and incentives for the conservation of energy or renewables, so lets add inefficient extraction - government. To this, Chavez's decline in output actually induces innovation and conservation, globally, never mind that Caracas has .25 cent / gal gas.
As for Russia, I guarantee energy exports will decline on purpose, very soon. My read on their new tax laws are that they will really hammer energy and raw commodity exports. But they are doing it in baby steps as such exports right now are filling their coffers.
As for Iran, they are a big country, and they need energy, and like many energy exporting nations, they will consume more and more at home. Iran is very aware of peak oil and is trying to diversify (it's econ). We will be lucky to see their exports stay constant... And what cracks me up is Georgia, a future NATO member, is ready to switch from Russian gas to Iranian... I'm sure they think NATO missile defense system or radar on Georgian territory will get them points with Iran.
But, you are right in placing that article here:
http://www.russiablog.org/2007/01/money_not_geopolitics_drives_r.php
As energy gets more expensive ideology is gone... pragmatic, realistic concepts such as peace, profit, contracts, democracy, none alignment movements, anti hegemony, they will all prevail over these delusional PNAC/Neocon concepts. Higher energy means less politics, long term... I'm sure we see some great shows in the mid term and short term. But long term, militaries will have less juice.
As far as the Chinese bailing out Mexico or Iran?
It's the Chinese that are subsidizing the worlds most advanced capitalist nation. It's Chinese communist financing that is holding billions of US debt. I would say Mexico, Iran and Venezuela have a higher probability of efficiently using Chinese capital than the US has in moderating either Iraq or the housing market.
When all this is said and done, Reagan had it right. He wanted everyone to keep more of what they earned. But I step back and look at it from an earthling's perspective and I believe Russians should keep what's theirs as well as Belarusians, Ukrainians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and so forth. The US has taxed every nation unofficially the sake of the metastasis it's cancerous growth using dollar hegemony with delusional politcs.
Sustainability and re-localization are truly the answer with a touch of Reagonism for everyone. And energy will not be transported long distances in such a new world, it will be consumed locally.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 6, 2007 11:22 AM
on the political front, many, many people lost careers, health and lives trying to keep America fair. People like Ray McGovern, George Galloway (of the UK), these are patriots.
Please can you explain how George Galloway:
1) Tried to keep America fair;
2) Lost his career, life, or health in doing so;
3) Can be deemed a patriot?
Posted by: Tim Newman | April 6, 2007 2:01 PM
Tim,
Anyone that confronts stupidity, and particularly, gov stupidity in my view, they are patriots. Not as patriotic as our soldiers, but when someone has a great political career, and they use it to point to and question authority when it is wrong, that impresses me.
Tim Ryan impresses me, and McGovern and Galloway are of the same class.
Great vid of Ryan ripping Bush a new backside, truth is a bitch.
http://www.therussiansarehere.com/vid/0-US-Failures/Tim_Ryan.wmv
There are groups in the world today that are building nations such as the Russian government and then you have the retards that are destroying nations such as Bush.
Indecently, Bush isn't just destroying the US.
In my opinion, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg did less damage to the US than Bush with Iraq or Cheney outing a CIA agent.
It's why I look at Russia/Belarus and with all her problems, see proof of good management. The US, with all her resources and access to capital from China (funny to type, but true) can't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag, and as Castro said, it's leader, Bush, couldn't debate a 10 year old.
People like Ryan, McGovern & Galloway could just tell the idiots what they want to hear, go along to get along, go with the flow, but instead, they love their country and are confronting the small brained nut cases running our countries. Yes men are a dome a dozen, and Kissinger was a yes man.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 7, 2007 10:05 AM
Clearly you know nothing whatsoever about George Galloway, or you would have answered my questions. Far from loving his country, he was an ardent supporter of the USSR throughout the Cold War, and was chucked out of his party for inciting Arabs to fight British troops.
Posted by: Tim Newman | April 7, 2007 1:07 PM
Tim,
I know a lot about Galloway...
It's your job to bring up the dirt, it's not my job. Yea, he met with Saddam, like Rummy... he met with lots of enemies, like the GOP, so what?
As for his support of the USSR, that's bs as he was no different than many other politicians trying to reach some middle ground.
Galloway's actions are normal in a multi polar world, the one that's coming. Galloway's actions were not good for those seeking world domination...
Please, you do the typing and tell about all the bad stuff he did... I'm ready to cut and paste the response.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 8, 2007 10:57 AM
As for his support of the USSR, that's bs as he was no different than many other politicians trying to reach some middle ground.
He described the end of the Soviet Union as "the saddest day of my life". I repeat: he supported the USSR, and you know nothing about Galloway.
Posted by: Tim Newman | April 8, 2007 11:49 PM
Tim,
I separate “institutions” from the “individual”. Noam Chomsky explains it well. The Soviet Union was a terrible system, yet as individuals, the Soviet people were mostly good people. In parallel, the US as an institution has thrown Iraq into a mess, caused terrible human rights violations, and as similar to the USSR, the US is a terrible institution yet the individuals are decent people.
I mean take the world wide human trafficking, despite that the US is the number one destination (demand side), as an institution this is simply despicable, but, as individuals, I believe most Americans, if they knew of some slave, would help to free these victims. But, you got to admit, it’s damn good marketing and advertising when America holds a congress or a round table telling other countries what to do about slavery (supply side)… Kind of like when America talks human rights, while electrocuting prisoners in the groin. It’s this institution versus the individual stuff…
To this, Putin and Gorbachev say the dissolution of the USSR was a catastrophe. Never mind that there was a referendum, and that most people of the USSR voted to keep the USSR intact. So the signing at Belaveskaya Pushcha in Belarus to dissolve the USSR may have been against the wishes of the referendum, but long term is was a good thing.
George Galloway speaks in terms not of the institution but at what the individual Soviet citizen suffered. Right after the disintegration, America was in there with Vaseline ready to clean up.
And anyway Tim, democracy is for Americans only, right? Bulgarian’s voted in a referendum to stay out of NATO, but the gov chose to ignore the democratic process saying, in effect, that the population it too stupid. It’s why Bush lied about wmd or alluding that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, you see, in Bush pee brain mind, Americans are too stupid for the truth. Here, the institution over ruled the individual democratic choices.
Don’t get confused, not all democracy is good, Hamas for example is a symbol of democracy because so many Palestinians voted to support that institution, never mind that it represents their hate, it is DEMOCRACY.
So Galloway, Putin, Gorbachev, and Lukashenko can call the dissolution of the USSR a sad day. But nobody wants it back. Tim, you the reason why you see people as nostalgic for the past USSR is because you are still living in the past of cold war mentality.
I know of many Russians here in my home town in NJ who voted in the referendum to keep the USSR intact, and they were sad that their vote was over ruled by US NGO money to Yeltsin, but they don’t want to go back… they are quite happy with the future of capitalism in Russia.
Tim, let go of the past man, embrase capitalsim and democracy, even if oil will be $250 / brl.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Luther,
I think Putin once said that anyone who wanted the USSR to perish had no heart but that anyone who wants it resurrected has no brains.
I am a child of the cold war and I do miss the USSR. I felt much safer back then than I feel today.
Posted by: Heribert Schindler | April 10, 2007 10:18 AM
Heribert,
I received your email, thanks... I'll get back to you later....
Back on 9/11, I was in my office, complaining that the Internet sucked, got a telephone call for the reason, 9/11. So I turned on the TV and watched, and used the Internet the best as I could.
At that point, I was thinking, as Ivanov said recently, that the cold war was really calm compared to what's coming... Those were the good old days where rational people, rational nations had the wmd and kept each other at stalemate.
Today, it's all irrational. The terrorists have working business plans and business models that are not only asymmetrical, but they are simply genius, or viral.
And finally, we have another irrational nut case, a religious psychopath, a fundamentals, a true dreamer who claims he can look into people's eyes and see their souls, this delusional fruit cake of a failure is Bush and those that order him around.
Those were the good old days... no Internet, no advanced terrorism (some terrorism with limits).
Yet I wouldn't trade what we have today. It's nearly impossible to cheery pick and grab only the good things from the past. But the USSR was a balance, it keep Reagan from becoming Bush Jr.
So forward we go, Russia will continue it's recovery, while the US will continue with it's failed coarse.
Galloway is not just sad about the disintegration of the USSR, but in fact, if the USSR can disintegrate, then with all probability, so to will Nato and the US.
With the last decade of US failures, many of it's mistakes are mirroring those of the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 10, 2007 11:06 AM
Luther,
I also remember exactly where I've been on 9/11. September 2001 was the 9th month of my first year running my own business. My former employer had invited me to his annual fair, the first I attended not being an employee but a guest. I had a couple of drinks with my former boss, a tough ex-McKinsey-man himself and enjoyed him telling me how much he admired the success I had in my first months and how much would bite his rear end now for letting me go.
We sat in his vip-lounge, watched the news on his widescreen hightech tv and suddenly we saw the planes crash into the twin towers. He shook his head and said "Well, I guess you've chosen the right year to leave. Nothing will be the way it was before."
He was right. Less than a year later he gave up and closed down his firm. He must have lost a hell lot of money by the events of 9/11.
A good year for me, a bad year for him. And the USA have also learnt a double lesson.
a) that they aren't untouchable
b) that they have the worst president ever.
Well, they haven't learnt b) too well as they've re-elected this guy.
Posted by: Heribert Schindler | April 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Maybe against my better judgment I post a reply to this:
"I think Putin once said that anyone who wanted the USSR to perish had no heart but that anyone who wants it resurrected has no brains."
****
You "think"? Putin said the way the USSR broke up was bad in how it caused agreat hardship for many.
The second part of the quote indicates that Putin isn't against the Soviet Union's demise.
The conclusion being that the USSR's end could've been less painful.
Relatedly, there's a continued need to understand that a reunification between Russia and some other former Soviet territopries isn't akin to a return to the USSR. Rather, it's a reflection of togetherness for a period much longer than the Soviet Union's life span.
This is something which many business folks dealing with Russia don't understand because they aren't well versed in Russian history, culture and politics.
All the more reason to broaden the base from the existing status quo of undemocratically selected wonks who don't always connect all of the dots.
As an imperfect process lingers on.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 12, 2007 12:03 AM
Al Goroh, you are ok in my book. I rarely agree with your position (although I do think Sandy Berger is absolute scum), but you don't turn every post dealing with Russian-American affairs into a anti-american screed.
The fact that people like McGovern (9/11 truther nut) and Galloway are Luther's heros tells me all I need to know about him. If these men are considered patriots, then Benedict Arnold and Guy Fawkes should also be considered patriots.
To expand on Mike's comment (and also try to add something to this post of mine that is remotely on topic), if Americans were fully aware of the hell that the Russians had to live through in the 1990's, they would probably be a whole lot less critical of how Russians are choosing to conduct their affairs today.
Posted by: jason h | April 13, 2007 10:46 AM
Luther G. Quick said,
"The article digs deep into Russia’s past problems, and they are partly fair. But later it states that western-style democratic political system can’t emerge from Russia's past? Silly, very silly. As usual, like so many anti Russian articles, this thing is written with one eye open."
Talking about keeping one's eyes open, the original quote was,
"A Western-style democratic political system cannot quickly emerge from the building blocks of Russia's political past; new vistas are needed."
Do you disagree with the correct quote, Luther? Do you think that such a system will emerge quickly in Russia?
Posted by: Candide | April 14, 2007 1:08 PM
Candide,
Yup, you bet... Such a system is emerging from Russia... but it depends, that is, it's not "good" for none Russians... it's fair, sure...
I mean, it would be very good for the US or EU if say, Gazprom was owned by BP and Lukoil was owned by Exxon and maybe Shell gobbled up Yukos... but it wouldn't be fair or good for Russia... and to be honest, isn't this what all this geo politics is about? Democracy ? now way...
Now since Russia managed to hold onto her resources, now such democracy and human rights and institutions can emerge, and they ARE !
I know this article isn't about economics or who owns what resources, but like any individual, in order to happy (stable) and prosperous you need to keep what's yours and what you worked for... Russia will be a stronger democracy and a better ally once she protects strategic areas such as energy.
A strong Russia is good.
And I think sometimes the West is a little paranoid because when America was strong she invaded over delusions and fairy tales, instituted things like Gitmo and Abu Grarib, and to this, America thinks if Russia is strong that Russia would behave just like today's America.
It's kind of like a criminal not trusting anyone. The US doesn't trust Russia because it's the US that can't be trusted.
Russia will be just fine and those systems are emerging.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 15, 2007 6:19 PM
Not so fast Luther.
Russian history has two phases:
I. When its back is against the wall, it rallies to survive. The last decade being an example.
II. When Russia is reasonably expected to get over the hump, it doesn't quite make it.
There're things going on right now in Russia which suggest number II is in place.
Just look at some of the Russian government funded Eng. language media/PR efforts that have been critiqued elsewhere by others besides yours truly. A much better job could be done. Wealth distribution is a concern as well. The middle class isn't rising as great as many economists feel it should be. On the periphery, are the not so Russia friendly forces, always looking for an agenda.
Hoping for the best, with an eye on the rascals.
Posted by: Michael Averko | April 17, 2007 8:58 PM
Michael,
In my humble opinion, leave the CIS alone and they will succeed. I would say most of the last 15 years of difficulties were related to Western interference… Gorbachev is not happy with these fake protests in Russia today, and as the 7 year track record shows, things work better when the west is kept at a distance… The only reason these dissidents are protesting is because the US eggs them on and pays their overhead… How many foreign governments were paying Martin Luther King when he protested? I’ll bet zero… and to that, his protests were genuine. Does anyone really believe Russia would be more prosperous today had Yukos been sold to some Western major? The Western dream for Russia was to bring in Western capital, buy up all prize economic trophies and then stick a US flag on the Kremlin… But, the better happened… Russia earned her capital, and is now investing in her self and taking the more stable and the more autonomous path… And the Russian flag stays on top of the Kremlin. And autonomy will be kept for Belarus and Ukraine, despite Western NGO money and good intensions copied from the Iraqi business model.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | April 18, 2007 3:01 PM
Kissinger again. He is the scorpion which dismantled the Soviet Union. His idea is to give a killer kiss and that happens only by being very near to his victim.
He sees an uprise of Russia, and he hurriedly try to tell them lets be near and that is the way to kill Russia in peace. I hope the Russians learn the lesson.
I don't see anything common between the US aggression around the globe, and the Russian balanced position.
Russians can open Moscow the gates to Middle East individuals to live in. Something the English / American did for ages. In this way they came to know nations much more closer. That was the concept of the Islamic governing for 1000 years as well.
People from the Islamic world can help Russia, opposite to evil Kissinger proposal to create new enemies to Russia.
Posted by: sumerian100 | August 21, 2007 11:47 AM
to Luther the anti-american
- i read some of your posts and i have to say this.. why dont you just leave this country? you keep bashing the U.S. so stop benefiting from our way of llfe and try living as a citizen in Venezuela or Iran.. try having a daughter in Iran and you'll pray every night to come back to the U.S. Yes the U.S. may seem like a bully to other countries but i believe that the U.S. is out to make every country like itself.. and whats wrong with that.. look at how we live compared to any country in the middle east, russia, latin america and so on... we have the best political and economic system in the history of the world plus we care about how other people are living and we will defend their freedom if it comes down to it. in the case of iraq we didnt find any nukes but please stop saying things like bush lied about that because he made his decision based on different sources of intelligence that was given to him (so please stop sounding naive about politics), plus many democrats like hillary clinton said the same thing at the time (find some of her speeches) but you know what, Sadamm Hussein did have chemical weapons which is outlawed by the geneva convention and he did use it to kill tens of thousands of Kurds in northern iraq in his testing of these chemical weapons and that played a role in us going into iraq. and how is bin laden Bush's boss like you mentioned in one of your posts.. how old are you? if youre going to argue please use real facts and not ridiculous speculations with no basis - you probably believe in the illuminati crap and other conspiracy theories. and about iran, cant spell his name but the leader of iran has repeatedly said he wants to destroy isreal and the U.S. and he wants islamic fascism to spread all over the world.. you know the islamic fascism that includes blowing yourself up to kill innocent people, so basicall iran is a bad guy and that whole leadership there needs to be removed the way we removed sadam in iraq. you keep mentioning all the bad things we do but compare that to the bad things other countries like iran, russia, venezuela, and many other countries do. we're angels compared to them cuz at least we give our civilians freedom of speech and press for goodness sake..
Posted by: ray-zilla | October 15, 2007 10:49 AM