My new spirit animal

[CID1990]

He doesn’t get too much in the weeds about the Russian psyche (unfortunately... the under 40 crowd really needs a lesson on pre- Cold War geopolitics)

But this guy says exactly what I have been saying for a while now

It is ultimately a paean to potential love lost... what could have been... but it is too late now. We could settle our differences one day under beautiful but deadly mushroom clouds now, but that’s pretty much all that could happen to improve our relations ...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ ... difficult/

[kalm]

Great piece and tough to argue with. I especially appreciated these two bits...

What troubles us? It can’t be that we are upset at Russian violations of human rights at home; that doesn’t trouble anyone who approves America’s special relationship with Saudi Arabia. It can’t be that we really fear it as a long-term rival for power. Russia shrinks, China grows. So what is it?

For others the doubts are darker. The post-war program lately produces more economic dislocation than they expected and more political turmoil than they can stomach. It also produces hypocrisy. Russians are expected to swallow the corruption of Yeltsin being foisted on them. But Western elites can’t even handle a few Facebook memes.

[CID1990]

They are just a political bogeyman now - to be invoked every four years moving forward... like being soft on crime, now being soft on Russia will be the kiss of death

Except for Obama... 20, 30, 40 years from now he will be vehemently defended on foreign policy on Russia

As will Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton. I can almost forgive these two because they at least had the experience of being cold warriors (one in reality, the other by virtue of the time of his birth only)

But GWB and Obama have the lions share of the blame for allowing the cancer of the 1990s to metastasize by ignoring it

[Ibanez]

America’s political actors seem to shift their views easily. When Mitt Romney said in 2012 that Russia was America’s “top geopolitical foe,” President Obama snapped back, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Liberals cheered.

He will never live that down.

[Ibanez]

Great piece and tough to argue with. I especially appreciated these two bits...

What troubles us? It can’t be that we are upset at Russian violations of human rights at home; that doesn’t trouble anyone who approves America’s special relationship with Saudi Arabia. It can’t be that we really fear it as a long-term rival for power. Russia shrinks, China grows. So what is it?

For others the doubts are darker. The post-war program lately produces more economic dislocation than they expected and more political turmoil than they can stomach. It also produces hypocrisy. Russians are expected to swallow the corruption of Yeltsin being foisted on them. But Western elites can’t even handle a few Facebook memes.

We may one day accept, or at least understand, that its ugly political culture is informed by an unhappy history and unlucky geography. We may even recognize our own blunders in our relationship. Right now we are too wrapped up in our own factional domestic disputes, and too haunted by our own feeling that we lack leadership and policy wisdom, our own fear that we lack the will to maintain our way of life or the ability to change it.

1) CID - thanks for the article. It's very enlightening.
2) The West does tend to ignore/forget the history and culture of other countries. We look at them out of context. We tend to look past their Russia's "long hard winter."

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't disagree with anything in that article. I don't think it's that unique or seldom heard of a perspective, though. It's just the way it is.

Truman left things far worse with Stalin than Roosevelt would have. Clinton stabbed Gorbachev in the back. I definitely empathize with Russia over both.

But, there was never any "potential love lost." Our interests clash. They're not a Western state and have had no desire to become one. There's nothing wrong with that. But, Western success comes at the expense of Russia. Russian resurgence comes at the expense of the West. And, this shit goes back a loooong way. Back at least to the West fucking over the Byzantines.

[GannonFan]

The part I liked...

Instead, both privately and publicly, it is spoken of like a ghost written into the Western storyline. It haunts the West. It is the motor behind every unwelcome political development. It is blamed for the rise of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, even if he was the product of Atlanticist institutions. People blame Russia for the rise of a populist nationalist party in Poland, even if that party is led by a man who believes Putin killed his brother.

That's the stuff that invokes a "Red Scare" every generation. It's easy to blame things you don't like happening on a Russian bogeyman, as CID used that term earlier.

[GannonFan]

I don't disagree with anything in that article. I don't think it's that unique or seldom heard of a perspective, though. It's just the way it is.

Truman left things far worse with Stalin than Roosevelt would have. Clinton stabbed Gorbachev in the back. I definitely empathize with Russia over both.

But, there was never any "potential love lost." Our interests clash. They're not a Western state and have had no desire to become one. There's nothing wrong with that. But, Western success comes at the expense of Russia. Russian resurgence comes at the expense of the West. And, this **** goes back a loooong way. Back at least to the West **** over the Byzantines.

Where do you get the Truman/Stalin stuff and that Roosevelt would've smoothed things over? Stalin and Roosevelt were already at odds at Yalta, and the issues that came between the US and the Soviet Union were far greater than just the two men heading the countries at the time. And besides, Papa Joe wasn't really an easy man to get along with anyway, I'm not sure what magic Roosevelt would've had to deal with that.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think Roosevelt would have had any magic as far as Russia - US relations. That's my point. As I said - Russia would have remained antagonists regardless. It's our natural state and it isn't going to change.

I do think Stalin was deeply suspicious of Truman and didn't trust him - and vice versa. Roosevelt and Stalin had a much better relationship. Yeah, it wasn't at all perfect and I don't think much would have changed significantly. But, Russian do still hold a grudge over it. And, I'm sympathetic to it.

Same with NATO. I don't believe that things would be drastically different between the West and Russia if we hadn't expanded NATO. Russia would still oppose the West because it's in their interest and we'd oppose Russia. If Putin came to power as a Westernizer - he would have been a one-term President (if he lasted that long) and a footnote.

[CID1990]

I don't think Roosevelt would have had any magic as far as Russia - US relations. That's my point. As I said - Russia would have remained antagonists regardless. It's our natural state and it isn't going to change.

I do think Stalin was deeply suspicious of Truman and didn't trust him - and vice versa. Roosevelt and Stalin had a much better relationship. Yeah, it wasn't at all perfect and I don't think much would have changed significantly. But, Russian do still hold a grudge over it. And, I'm sympathetic to it.

Same with NATO. I don't believe that things would be drastically different between the West and Russia if we hadn't expanded NATO. Russia would still oppose the West because it's in their interest and we'd oppose Russia. If Putin came to power as a Westernizer - he would have been a one-term President (if he lasted that long) and a footnote.

This is the same groupthink that has been going on in DC for the last 20 years

The cold war didnt shape Russian posture - it shaped ours. And to understand Russia we can ignore everything that happened after WWII and look to our relations with them prior to the Bolshevik revolution. At that point, we were extremely friendly with Russia- they viewed us as their ally and buffer against a Europe that was unstable and prone to testing Russian defenses in times of turmoil

After WWII, the Soviets realized two things: that the only way to prevent a fourth existential invasion was to create buffer states, and that the US would be a hindrance to that

since the end of the cold war our activities have done nothing but reinforce the Russian view that they need to play sphere of influence politics to guarantee their own sovereignty. The idea that the expansion of NATO was not the prime mover in this is complete bunk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Every nation-state is motivated by interests that are unique to it. The US and Russia need each other in a sick sort of way. I’m far more concerned about a conflict with a rogue state like NK or Iran, or a geopolitical faceoff with China (Spratlys, anyone?), than I am about Russia.

And then there’s Bolton, our itchy-fingered NS advisor...

[CID1990]

Every nation-state is motivated by interests that are unique to it. The US and Russia need each other in a sick sort of way. I’m far more concerned about a conflict with a rogue state like NK or Iran, or a geopolitical faceoff with China (Spratlys, anyone?), than I am about Russia.

And then there’s Bolton, our itchy-fingered NS advisor...

The frustrating thing is that the ship on Russia sailed sometime during the Clinton or GWB admins. We passed a point of no return there, and now we are saddled with Putin, who is in good health and will likely be in charge there until he dies

and politically, nobody can make nice with him. And ironically, it is our animosity towards him that fuels his popularity... its like we are locked in a continual loop of clusterfbck that nobody can break

We'll be at odds with them well after all of us on this forum are dead and gone, and it literally didnt have to be that way.

we need someone who can go to Russia, the way only Nixon could go to China


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Every nation-state is motivated by interests that are unique to it. The US and Russia need each other in a sick sort of way. I’m far more concerned about a conflict with a rogue state like NK or Iran, or a geopolitical faceoff with China (Spratlys, anyone?), than I am about Russia.

And then there’s Bolton, our itchy-fingered NS advisor...

we need someone who can go to Russia, the way only Nixon could go to China


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m convinced that Dick Nixon never died; he was just freeze-dried. Thaw the old boy out and give him a shot.

[houndawg]

I don't think Roosevelt would have had any magic as far as Russia - US relations. That's my point. As I said - Russia would have remained antagonists regardless. It's our natural state and it isn't going to change.

I do think Stalin was deeply suspicious of Truman and didn't trust him - and vice versa. Roosevelt and Stalin had a much better relationship. Yeah, it wasn't at all perfect and I don't think much would have changed significantly. But, Russian do still hold a grudge over it. And, I'm sympathetic to it.

Same with NATO. I don't believe that things would be drastically different between the West and Russia if we hadn't expanded NATO. Russia would still oppose the West because it's in their interest and we'd oppose Russia. If Putin came to power as a Westernizer - he would have been a one-term President (if he lasted that long) and a footnote.

I think Stalin must have had at least a grudging professional respect for FDR's ability to get other people to do the dieing for him. The way that he dribbled out just enough supplies to keep Stalin fighting but not enough to be decisive was some pro work

[GannonFan]

I don't think Roosevelt would have had any magic as far as Russia - US relations. That's my point. As I said - Russia would have remained antagonists regardless. It's our natural state and it isn't going to change.

I do think Stalin was deeply suspicious of Truman and didn't trust him - and vice versa. Roosevelt and Stalin had a much better relationship. Yeah, it wasn't at all perfect and I don't think much would have changed significantly. But, Russian do still hold a grudge over it. And, I'm sympathetic to it.

Same with NATO. I don't believe that things would be drastically different between the West and Russia if we hadn't expanded NATO. Russia would still oppose the West because it's in their interest and we'd oppose Russia. If Putin came to power as a Westernizer - he would have been a one-term President (if he lasted that long) and a footnote.

I think Stalin must have had at least a grudging professional respect for FDR's ability to get other people to do the dieing for him. The way that he dribbled out just enough supplies to keep Stalin fighting but not enough to be decisive was some pro work

What was Stalin going to do, just give up? He didn't have an option to just surrender to the Nazis. Russia was fighting for their own survival, not to please a US President who, frankly until WWII, wasn't a factor at all in European/World politics. And we gave Russia plenty of stuff, you seem to be spouting the Putin-line (very unlike you to be so pro-Russia) on Allied contributions to the Russian war effort. UK contributions to the Russian cause in 1941 were significant, and US aid to Russia over the course of the war almost equaled the amount the US shipped to Europe to support their own armed forces. Nobody did anything alone in WWII (well, we did most of the work relative to Japan), it was an Allied effort.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... ermans.htm

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line

[bandl]

No one here picking up on the fact that CID has a spirit animal, like he's some kinda Cleets-hippie-wannabe?

[houndawg]

No one here picking up on the fact that CID has a spirit animal, like he's some kinda Cleets-hippie-wannabe?

Weed must be legal where he lives

[Pwns]

Jelly, what exactly makes Russia a "natural enemy"? Do we compete with them economically in some way that we don't with Europe?

[Chizzang]

No one here picking up on the fact that CID has a spirit animal, like he's some kinda Cleets-hippie-wannabe?

Don't drag me into this...



I've been minding my own business this entire thread

[houndawg]

I think Stalin must have had at least a grudging professional respect for FDR's ability to get other people to do the dieing for him. The way that he dribbled out just enough supplies to keep Stalin fighting but not enough to be decisive was some pro work

What was Stalin going to do, just give up? He didn't have an option to just surrender to the Nazis. Russia was fighting for their own survival, not to please a US President who, frankly until WWII, wasn't a factor at all in European/World politics. And we gave Russia plenty of stuff, you seem to be spouting the Putin-line (very unlike you to be so pro-Russia) on Allied contributions to the Russian war effort. UK contributions to the Russian cause in 1941 were significant, and US aid to Russia over the course of the war almost equaled the amount the US shipped to Europe to support their own armed forces. Nobody did anything alone in WWII (well, we did most of the work relative to Japan), it was an Allied effort.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... ermans.htm

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line

You missed the point. Of course we supplied them, at a rate that would keep them fighting but not turn the tide too soon. Masterful statecraft that saved a lot of American lives.

[SeattleGriz]

America’s political actors seem to shift their views easily. When Mitt Romney said in 2012 that Russia was America’s “top geopolitical foe,” President Obama snapped back, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Liberals cheered.

He will never live that down.

He was "leading from behind" when he made that statement to Romney.

[GannonFan]

What was Stalin going to do, just give up? He didn't have an option to just surrender to the Nazis. Russia was fighting for their own survival, not to please a US President who, frankly until WWII, wasn't a factor at all in European/World politics. And we gave Russia plenty of stuff, you seem to be spouting the Putin-line (very unlike you to be so pro-Russia) on Allied contributions to the Russian war effort. UK contributions to the Russian cause in 1941 were significant, and US aid to Russia over the course of the war almost equaled the amount the US shipped to Europe to support their own armed forces. Nobody did anything alone in WWII (well, we did most of the work relative to Japan), it was an Allied effort.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... ermans.htm

You missed the point. Of course we supplied them, at a rate that would keep them fighting but not turn the tide too soon. Masterful statecraft that saved a lot of American lives.

What the??? Besides venturing into spandos territory there (i.e. we were carefully tuning how much supplies we gave to the Soviet Union to keep them in the war - as if they were just going to give up - but not too much that they would beat the Germans too quickly), you're arguing against your own point. If the Soviets could have defeated the Germans quicker with more supplies from us (doubtful, but let's run with it) wouldn't that have saved more American lives than just stretching it out and making us fight in Europe as we did later in the war? It seems to me that you're making this stuff up as you go along.

[CID1990]

You missed the point. Of course we supplied them, at a rate that would keep them fighting but not turn the tide too soon. Masterful statecraft that saved a lot of American lives.

It seems to me that you're making this stuff up as you go along.

This year's Captain Obvious award goes to Ganny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

You missed the point. Of course we supplied them, at a rate that would keep them fighting but not turn the tide too soon. Masterful statecraft that saved a lot of American lives.

What the??? Besides venturing into spandos territory there (i.e. we were carefully tuning how much supplies we gave to the Soviet Union to keep them in the war - as if they were just going to give up - but not too much that they would beat the Germans too quickly), you're arguing against your own point. If the Soviets could have defeated the Germans quicker with more supplies from us (doubtful, but let's run with it) wouldn't that have saved more American lives than just stretching it out and making us fight in Europe as we did later in the war? It seems to me that you're making this stuff up as you go along.

Now you're being stupid on purpose. Obviously the Russians were going to fight on regardless. Duh. And just as obviously our greatest advantage comes when the Russians tie up as much of the German Army as possible and fight to a bloody stalemate. You just don't want to give FDR any credit.

[GannonFan]

What the??? Besides venturing into spandos territory there (i.e. we were carefully tuning how much supplies we gave to the Soviet Union to keep them in the war - as if they were just going to give up - but not too much that they would beat the Germans too quickly), you're arguing against your own point. If the Soviets could have defeated the Germans quicker with more supplies from us (doubtful, but let's run with it) wouldn't that have saved more American lives than just stretching it out and making us fight in Europe as we did later in the war? It seems to me that you're making this stuff up as you go along.

Now you're being stupid on purpose. Obviously the Russians were going to fight on regardless. Duh. And just as obviously our greatest advantage comes when the Russians tie up as much of the German Army as possible and fight to a bloody stalemate. You just don't want to give FDR any credit.

I give FDR a ton of credit, especially around WWII. Frankly, just getting us into the war and on the right side was huge and wasn't a foregone conclusion. And most of that is due to FDR. He has as much to do with the Allies winning WWII as anyone does (is that enough credit?). I'm just calling out the crap you're coming up with, that we were meticulously balancing how much aid we gave the Russians to make sure the war went on longer and was fought, as your now new piece of made-up history says, to a bloody stalement. You're basically saying if we saw the Russians winning too much we'd delay that next shipment of jeeps until things got even again. There's no basis for that anywhere other than your head, so yeah, I say you're making it up.