# Do the Russians hate us?   Split off fm Caucasus In Crisis - Georgia and Russia



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

I think Turkey has a better relationship with Russia and does not have to worry about this.  Funny when ever Russia intervenes on its borders the West views this as an attempt to take over the world.  How often does the U.S intervene in places that is nowhere near its borders?  Even Canada with Kosovo and Afghanistan.  Funny how the Canadian assistance in the invasion of Afghanistan was not viewed as something sinister, but when the Soviets did the exact same the west freaked out.  The Russians are entitled to play in the area of the sandbox and the west needs to get over this.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I think Turkey has a better relationship with Russia and does not have to worry about this.  Funny when ever Russia intervenes on its borders the West views this as an attempt to take over the world.  How often does the U.S intervene in places that is nowhere near its borders?  Even Canada with Kosovo and Afghanistan.  Funny how the Canadian assistance in the invasion of Afghanistan was not viewed as something sinister, but when the Soviets did the exact same the west freaked out.  The Russians are entitled to play in the area of the sandbox and the west needs to get over this.



Do you realize what this sounds like?  Very similar to what Dr Granatstein just recently wrote about.  ummmmmm?


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> Do you realize what this sounds like?  Very similar to what Dr Granatstein just recently wrote about.  ummmmmm?



Come again?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Come again?



 :       

What unites all the new peace groups is their anti-Americanism. Canada is following the Bush agenda; Canada should get out of the American war in Afghanistan; Canada should halt its defence integration with the Yanks. Led by Barlow, Byers and Staples, the refrain is automatic and predictable. If Barack Obama wins the U.S. election, it will be interesting to see how the peace movement changes gears to denounce the new administration — of course, if McCain wins, the gears won’t need to be changed.

Your posts seem to be falling into this category.


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> Your posts seem to be falling into this category.



I would disagree-my post has nothing to do with the peace movement.  I never said Canada should not be in Afghanistan, all I am saying is that Canada through a hissy fit when the Russians invaded in 1979 and that the west can be at times quite hypocritical.  We are allowed intervene but noone else can.   It not that I am anti-American.   I understand that the U.S pursues a self-interested foreign policy and so does Russia.  My objections is the amount of anti-Russian sentiment.   I am thankful for the Russians, as if it were not for them and their tens of million war dead the Nazi's would have prevailed and the world would look a whole lot different.  Occasionally they get things right.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ................  My objections is the amount of anti-Russian sentiment.



Sorry.  Sixty years of Cold War really makes it hard to call an old enemy, and possibly still an enemy, anything other.  Perhaps you can tell us how Pro-American the Russians are?


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> Perhaps you can tell us how Pro-American the Russians are?



What?


----------



## Rodders (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I think Turkey has a better relationship with Russia and does not have to worry about this.  Funny when ever Russia intervenes on its borders the West views this as an attempt to take over the world.  How often does the U.S intervene in places that is nowhere near its borders?  Even Canada with Kosovo and Afghanistan.  Funny how the Canadian assistance in the invasion of Afghanistan was not viewed as something sinister, but when the Soviets did the exact same the west freaked out.  The Russians are entitled to play in the area of the sandbox and the west needs to get over this.



I think he does make one fair point though, and that is this perception that some have that Russia has some grand scheme to take over Europe.
No country (Russia, Canada, the US) has it's foreign policy based in altruism. Russia, just like the US operates abroad largely in furtherance of it's own goals, and quite often at the detriment of others. I'm not picking a side here, but I think it a little biased to completely view one country's actions (whichever country you wish) as totally and consistently acceptable, while condemning all the actions of another.

There are grounds to criticise the behaviour/actions of every nation. But I don't think we should jump to assumptions that may be baseless.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> What?



Come on.  You are complaining how "anti-Russian" the West is.  So?  I asked you how pro-American the Russians were?  Seems fair, that you present your case, and answer.


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> Come on.  You are complaining how "anti-Russian" the West is.  So?  I asked you how pro-American the Russians were?  Seems fair, that you present your case, and answer.



Why do you equate the west with America?  Surely they are not the same? I think the immense Russian demand for western luxury goods and other cultural aspects answers your question.  Russians don't hate the west as much as you think they do.


----------



## Rodders (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Why do you equate the west with America?  Surely they are not the same? I think the immense Russian demand for western luxury goods and other cultural aspects answers your question.  Russians don't hate the west as much as you think they do.



Okay, I'm not trying to be Stegner's advocate  , but as far as the Russian people are concerned, I can vouch for this. I am in regular (daily) communication with many people throughout Russia, and while they all share a strong patriotism for their country, I have never detected anything that could be described as anti-western, or much in the way of anti-American sentiment.
Western Europeans have a different view of the world than do we North Americans, and I also don't think that the typical Russian's opinion of us is one of dislike or contempt.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Why do you equate the west with America?  Surely they are not the same? I think the immense Russian demand for western luxury goods and other cultural aspects answers your question.  Russians don't hate the west as much as you think they do.



Actually......No that doesn't answer my question.  



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Why do you equate the west with America?



If you prefer; The West.  The immense desire for Western luxury goods proves nothing.  It is much the same as equating our relations to China to the purchase of "Made in China" goods.  I wouldn't equate the West's relations with China as being that 'trusting' and amicable.

Perhaps you can tell us how friendly Putin's recreating the Cuba Missile Crisis of the 1960's as being just an amicable gesture on his part towards the West/America?

I have not seen proof that Russia doesn't hate the West as you seem to claim.  This whole crisis in the Caucasus has shown a fair amount of 'sabre rattling' on Russia's part.


----------



## stegner (21 Aug 2008)

> Actually......No that doesn't answer my question.



Then I am not sure what you were trying to ask.



> Perhaps you can tell us how friendly Putin's recreating the Cuba Missile Crisis of the 1960's as being just an amicable gesture on his part towards the West/America?



As opposed to Bush ripping up the ABM?  Or placing missiles in Eastern Europe?  Or recognizing Kosovo?



> If you prefer; The West.  The immense desire for Western luxury goods proves nothing.  It is much the same as equating our relations to China to the purchase of "Made in China" goods.



No it is completely different.   The 'made in China' goods are not actually Chinese goods, they are western goods that happen to be produced in China because of the low wages.  They are just produced in China.  They are for the most part western designs.  A true cultural exchange would be if west was actually exporting Chinese culture artifacts not Chinese ripoffs of western goods.  The Russian demand for western cultural goods is much different in that they represent western cultural symbols (i.e. Cartier, Mercedes etc.)   The acquisition of these symbols would not be tolerated, let alone celebrated, in a society with rampant ant-Western sentiment.   Consider the Freedom Fry debacle in the U.S several years back.   I think Bill O'Reilly is still continuing his boycott of France.   In any event I believe that we are getting really really off-topic here.    Do the mods want to create a separate  thread to something like: Do the Russians hate us?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

It is not.  Both the Russians and the West are in demand for goods.  It just so happens that the goods that the Russians are demanding are on a little higher level of "prestige" and value than those the West is demanding.   Both are "consumers".  That has no actual relevance to the 'Politics' they hold.  It has been over seventy years since they were last Allies.  There is a lot of animosity on both sides.  

I have seen a lot of smiling faces in my time, and know that behind the smile there often was nothing.  Just like a salesman; it was fake.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> . . . Do the Russians hate us?



Who cares if they hate us or not?  Or more specifically define what you call "hate".  Jealousy of our standard of living?  Dislike of our political system?  Racial or cultural bigotry?  Or is it reciprocal animosity because they think we "hate" them?  And who are "the Russians"?  Are you making a blanket statement to include the majority of the population or are you referring to the government.  You may get very different answers depending on the "Russian" you talk to.  I would guess that it is better to say that they do not trust us, just as the "west" does not trust them.  My mistrust of them is based on a belief that they are more likely to use military action (or threat of miltary action) to achieve their aims (foreign and domestic) than most "western" nations.  But then, I'm probably a relic of the Cold War.  For some on these means, the 40 odd years spent watching them across borders is still a vivid memory as it probably is for some Russians.

So, who cares if they hate us or not?  As long as they buy our goods and make available their goods to us as needed and do not interfere in our legitimate relationships with other nations, it really doesn't matter whether they like us or not.  And the same criteria can be applied in reverse.  However, let's not turn our backs on them.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (22 Aug 2008)

I think what it boils down to is old habits die hard. After staring down the gun barrels of the former Soviet Union for 50+ years, it hard for some people, especially of our generation to not think ill of Russia when she flexes her muscles on the world stage.

It has nothing to do with the Russion people, but everything to do with its government, a big difference.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Aug 2008)

The Russian leadership doesnt care what we in the west think of their actions. Nor should we care what they think if we have to act in our national interest. They dont get to vote in our elections. Russian goals are historic in nature and reveal a very xenophobic streak in the people as a whole. It all about warm water ports and secure borders.They have been invaded throughout their history so the goal is to keep the frontiers as far from Moscow as possible.The former republics were merely shields for Mother Russia.

Today we see a resurgent Russia intent on becoming a player in the world stage. They will use their military and economic power to assert their interests. Their economic power is their energy resources and they are in a position to shut off the gas/oil pipeline to Europe anytime they want. As weak kneed as the Europeans are they may dance to Putins tune to keep the lights on and heat in their homes. Of course if that doesnt work there are always the tanks.I think Putins goal is to become a hegamon - to control the policies of his neighbors. Whats particurly dangerous is our own reluctance to employ military power to force Russia to modify its aims.We will see more Georgia's before we get the backbone to face them down.Kruschev blinked and Putin will too if he is challenged.If we wait until Russia has rebuilt its military then we will be in for real trouble.


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Putins goal is to become a hegamon - to control the policies of his neighbors. Whats particurly dangerous is our own reluctance to employ military power to force Russia to modify its aims.If we wait until Russia has rebuilt its military then we will be in for real trouble.



Looks like a threat? Isn't it?
Preventing one from becoming hegamon was always a good excuse to become a hegamon. Right?
Calm down dude.
Contrary to US, Russia has legitimate right to protect its borders, citizens and insure stability.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Contrary to US, Russia has legitimate right to protect its borders and insure stability.


  

 ???

Can you explain that one further please.....it doesnt make sense.


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Can you explain that one further please.....it doesnt make sense.



Yes it does.
Wars and conflicts at Russia's borders have an imminent impact on Russia's economy and security.
This is nothing to do with fiction American interests that arise sporadically everywhere in the world.

In the case of the last Ossetia-Georgia war, Russia had a UN peacekeeper mandate and is a warrant of the stability in the region.
And this is for a reason. 90% of South Ossetians are Russian citizens. At the time of conflict, Russia received up to 50 000 refugees from this region.
So it is silly to think Russia will not intervene to restablish peace after Georgian invasion.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Wars and conflicts at Russia's borders have an imminent impact on Russia's economy and security.



The same can be said about wars far from US shores. The same can be said about wars far from Canadian shores.



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> So it is silly to think Russia will not intervene to restablish peace after Georgian invasion.



It may be silly but your argument that Russian has a right to protect its borders and the US does not is ROTL.


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

But a line tends to be drawn before invasion.  You know, going full force into a nation tends to be frowned upon.
Russians went way into Georgia in places.  A peacekeeping forces job is to stop hostilities and split the two sides, not send armour divisions deep into the country that they don't likes' territory.
Both groups were throwing stones, and yet they took no disciplinary action with SO.

Whether or not I think they were "Peacekeeping" or not, is irrelevent.  I just don't think either side was/is "right".


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> But a line tends to be drawn before invasion.  You know, going full force into a nation tends to be frowned upon.
> Russians went way into Georgia in places.  A peacekeeping forces job is to stop hostilities and split the two sides, not send armour divisions deep into the country that they don't likes' territory.
> Both groups were throwing stones, and yet they took no disciplinary action with SO.
> 
> Whether or not I think they were "Peacekeeping" or not, is irrelevent.  I just don't think either side was/is "right".



Let's put it simple and clear. 
Georgia started this war.
Russia had a peacekeeper mandate.
Russia reestablished peace.

Some localised intervention on Georgian territory (radars,air bases) were necessary to effectively suppress Georgian military infrastracture and quickly prevent any further fighting.
Nothing more.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Georgia started this war.




Its not that simple , in any way , shape or form




> Russia reestablished peace.



No, they did not.



> Nothing more.



Theres plenty more to this and Russia was far from altruistic in this. You live in a dream world you need to wake up from. Russia has never, and will never do anything that is not in its own best interest.


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, they did not.



Yes they did.



> Theres plenty more to this and Russia was far from altruistic in this. You live in a dream world you need to wake up from. Russia has never, and will never do anything that is not in its own best interest.



Is it surprising?
At this time the Russia's interest is to keep status quo and peace as it has been for last 20 years.
No war, no refugees, no ethnic conflicts, no criminality.
Is it altruistic? Not really.


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

What status quo?
They handed out Russian passports to non-russians.  And they are using that as a defence for what they did when crap went down.
They changed the "status quo" to suit themselves.

The Georgians are threatening more violence, which the Russians will gladly meet with a totally disproportionate retaliation.  I'm still hearing about violence in the news too.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> At this time the Russia's interest is to keep status quo and peace as it has been for last 20 years.



 :rofl:


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> What status quo?



After Georgia started and lost war against Ossetia in 1992, UN authorized Russia to put its peacekeeps in there.
This prevented hostilities for 15 years or so.

Ossetia is not a part of Georgia. It is de facto independent since 1991.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> But a line tends to be drawn before invasion.  You know, going full force into a nation tends to be frowned upon.
> Russians went way into Georgia in places.  A peacekeeping forces job is to stop hostilities and split the two sides, not send armour divisions deep into the country that they don't likes' territory.
> Both groups were throwing stones, and yet they took no disciplinary action with SO.
> 
> Whether or not I think they were "Peacekeeping" or not, is irrelevent.  I just don't think either side was/is "right".


I disagree with most of this post (but not all). Yes, going full force into a nation tends to be frowned upon.  Having said that, the line was drawn (and crossed) before Russia invaded Georgia (which includes South Ossetia, according to the international community).  Now, suppose for a moment that we take South Ossetia out of the Georgian equation.  Russia went deep, very deep, not just to "re-establish" the line, but to make sure that Georgia would never EVER do such a thing again.  Georgian military infrastructure, including barracks, ships and so forth, were destroyed by the Russians.  To me this makes perfect sense, and I wish that we did this in Iraq in early 1991.  If we did that, then the whole Iraq (and Suddam) situation would have been settled, once and for all, by about 1995.  Here it is, 2008, and we are finally seeing Victory in Iraq.
Before I'm accused of being a Russian sympathiser, I'm just stating a few things. First, Russia's entry into the Georgian/South Ossetian conflict met the demands of Jus ad Bellum. Second, the precedent was set (legally and all that) in Kosovo in 1999.  Third, there is no way on God's Green Earth that the USA would tolerate, say, a Cuban invasion of Puerto Rico, certainly not part of the US, but it may as well be, no?  We all have our spheres, and South Ossetia was (and is) certainly a Russian Sphere.
Finally, Russia doesn't view things the same way as we, going in with surgical strikes, etc.  They use their motor rifle divisions rather well, and the fact that they don't care too much about international opinion means that they can act quite quickly when Moscow decides on action.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> After Georgia started and lost war against Ossetia in 1992, UN authorized Russia to put its peacekeeps in there.
> This prevented hostilities for 15 years or so.
> 
> Ossetia is not a part of Georgia. It is de facto independent since 1991.


Well, technically, you're partly wrong.  North Ossetia is not part of Georgia. South Ossetia, however, is, according to the international community.  Still, that point is moot.  Kosovo was part of Serbia (until recently, anyway)...


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

I agree with you Mortarman Rockpainter.
I can't really say much more than that.  I don't think either side is innocent, nor right.  I don't like what either of the  countries did.  But yes, the Russians dealt with the problem in the way they know how, and they seem good at it.  You can't expect every country to do things our way.  I just don't like the steamroller method, but again, it works for them.

I do agree though.


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> After Georgia started and lost war against Ossetia in 1992, UN authorized Russia to put its peacekeeps in there.
> This prevented hostilities for 15 years or so.
> 
> Ossetia is not a part of Georgia. It is de facto independent since 1991.



But, Russia stuck their nose in it, and altered the status quo as it was in the beginning by giving people Russian Passports.  By doing that, wouldn't it seem like  S. Ossetia was favoured by the Russians?

And Mortarman got the rest.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> But, Russia stuck their nose in it, and altered the status quo as it was in the beginning by giving people Russian Passports.  By doing that, wouldn't it seem like  S. Ossetia was favoured by the Russians?


Given that Russia isn't too fond of Georgia in the first place, giving South Ossetians Russian Passports was "the natural" thing to do.  The whole area is a mess, I admit...


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

Yes.  I concur.  Natural for Russia, given their situation, wants and dislikes.  But not cool none the less.
 May as well have annexed the little place.  At least in that way, everyone would know their intentions for the get-go.  haha
(No where near that simple and trouble free, I know.  In fact it may have never had a snowballs chance in hell, but I'm just putting it out there.)


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> But, Russia stuck their nose in it, and altered the status quo as it was in the beginning by giving people Russian Passports.  By doing that, wouldn't it seem like  S. Ossetia was favoured by the Russians?



After the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, all former Soviet republics proclaimed independance, their own citizenship and so far.
At that time Russia acted as succsessor and took all debts and responsibilities of USSR.
As a consequence there were law saying that any person born in USSR can automatically get Russian citizenship if he/she had not got any other citizenship. 
The main reason for this was to protect Russian and other discriminated minorities living in the "new" independent states.
As an example, Baltic states like Estonia etc. prevented Russian-speaking people from getting their citizenship unless they pass national language exam.

Ossetia proclaimed independance from Georgia at the same time (or even before) Georgia separated from the Soviet Union.
In 1920s Ossetia was included in the Soviet Georgia as national autonomy, but this was a pure formality as republican borders were absolutely transparent and meaningless in the Soviet Union. 

De facto, since the Soviet Union, Ossetia has never wanted and  has never been a part of Georgia.


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Aug 2008)

But the neither the international community nor Georgia recognized that.  So as wrong as it may be...It's not as easy as you make it sound.


----------



## Flanker (23 Aug 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> But the neither the international community nor Georgia recognized that.  So as wrong as it may be...It's not as easy as you make it sound.



Yes, I agree.
As you may see Russia also does not recognize Ossetia as a country and do not accept Ossetia as a new federal region.
All this in spite of many requests and referendums from the Ossetian side.

So it is still a territory with an undefined status under a peacekeeper mandate of UN where Russia is a peace warrant.

PS. There was a similar situation with Adjaria.
This is another Georgian republic that tried to separate from Georgia.
In that case, this was Turkey, as an adjacent state, which acted as a peace warrant.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Aug 2008)

Visit Russia before Russia visits you:

Russia is fighting a new Cold War with banks and pipelines, not tanks and warplanes 

By Edward Lucas
Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 29/08/2008
Page 1 of 3

In classical mythology, Georgia was the land where the Argonauts had to harness bulls with bronze hooves to win the Golden Fleece. Modern Georgia is the source of a treasure scarcely less precious: oil and gas from central Asia and the Caspian, piped along the only east-west energy corridor that Russia does not control. But whereas Jason and his comrades triumphed, our quest has ended in humiliating failure.  
As the occupying power in Georgia, Russia can close or destroy those pipelines whenever it wishes. The only country in the region that even came close to sharing Western values, one vital for our energy security, has been humiliatingly defeated and dismembered. 


As politicians and voters in the free world return from their holidays, two big questions require answering. What happens next? And how do we stop it? 
Decoding the Kremlin’s precise intentions is as tricky now as it was in the days of Kremlinology – a discipline as archaic as Morse code. But the outlines are clear. 
Russia wants to recreate a “lite” version of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe and to neutralise the rest of the continent. Unlike the old Cold War, military action is a last resort: for the most part, it is banks and pipelines, not tanks and warplanes, that are doing the dirty work. 
This may sound strange, given what has happened in Georgia. But it is vital to realise that this was not the beginning of a new Russian push, but part of something that began in the mid-1990s. 
Russia has nobbled Belarus – the only other country, apart from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, that is ready to recognise the new statelets of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It props up the narco-state of Tajikistan, cossets the dictatorship in Uzbekistan and woos the benighted despots of Turkmenistan. It has a cautious alliance with China, in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, an outfit dedicated to fighting “extremism, terrorism and separatism” (although this last “-ism” has evidently been forgotten when it comes to Georgia). 
It has stitched up energy deals in North Africa; it flirts with Iran and sells weapons to Hugo Chavez, the America-hating windbag who runs Venezuela. And by using energy diplomacy and divide-and-rule tactics, it is stitching up Europe country by country, from Cyprus to the Netherlands. 
And it works. Over the crisis in Georgia, Europe has shown astonishing softness. The leaders of the EU have been all but invisible. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/29/do2905.xml


----------



## JackD (30 Aug 2008)

An article in the Weekly Standard: Don't Cry for Russia 
The world's unlikeliest "victim." 
by Cathy Young 
09/01/2008, Volume 013, Issue 47 



As Russian tanks rumble through Georgia, and Western pundits talk of the "new Cold War," one trope keeps reappearing in their discourse. Russia's newly aggressive stance, we are told, is partly our fault: After the fall of Communism, the West went out of its way to humiliate and trample Russia instead of treating it as a partner--and now, an oil-powered Russia is striking back.

"Russia's litany of indignities dates to the early 1990s when the Soviet empire collapsed," Samantha Power, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and former Barack Obama adviser, wrote in Time. "A bipolar universe gave way to a world in which the 'sole superpower' boasted about how it had 'won' the Cold War. Russia was forced to swallow the news that NATO would grant membership to former client states in Eastern Europe, along with former Soviet republics." This theme, particularly NATO expansion as an affront to Russia, has been echoed by many others, from Tom Friedman in the New York Times to Pat Buchanan in his syndicated column. 

By contrast, few of the Russians who lament their country's slide into belligerent authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin blame it on "humiliation" by the West. "Russia humiliated itself," says human rights grande dame Elena Bonner, widow of the dissident and scientist Andrei Sakharov. "It spent 70-plus years building Communism, and reaped the results."

Victor Davidoff, an independent Moscow journalist and former Soviet political prisoner who became a U.S. citizen but returned to Russia in 1992, told me in an email exchange that he was "nauseated" by talk of Russia's humiliation. "How did the West humiliate Russia? Gave it money--much of which was pilfered? Sent humanitarian aid? Paid for the dismantling of missiles? Invested in Russian businesses? The Germans don't consider the Marshall Plan a humiliation; why is aid to Russia humiliating?"

Davidoff's mention of the Marshall Plan is fitting, since Samantha Power explicitly contrasts the West's treatment of post-Cold War Russia with that of post-World War II Germany: "On occasion, Western countries have consciously avoided humiliating militant powers.  .  .  . Having neutered Germany following World War I, the Allies showed West Germany respect after World War II, investing heavily in its economy and absorbing the country into NATO."

This is a breathtaking inversion of reality. If ever a defeated power was "humiliated," it was postwar Germany--forced to endure several years of occupation, de-Nazification, a massive education campaign promoting the idea of collective German guilt for Nazi crimes, reparations to countries affected by the war, and loss of territories accompanied by the expulsion of millions of Germans. There was also the small matter of the country being split in half. 

The contrast with the West's treatment of post-Communist Russia is stark indeed. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States and Europe eagerly embraced Russia's young democracy. Western economic aid to Russia totaled $55 billion from 1992 to 1997 (not counting private charity). While some aid was conditioned on the continuation of market-oriented economic reforms, none of it was tied to political demands for a formal condemnation of the Soviet legacy. Russia was not required to dump the Lenin mummy from the mausoleum in Moscow, to put former party apparatchiks or KGB goons on trial, or to restrict their ability to hold government posts and run for public office. Nor was it forced to pay reparations to victims of Soviet aggression, or surrender territories such as the Kuril Islands, seized from Japan after World War II. 

What about the much-maligned NATO expansion? Friedman asserts that it was particularly galling to Russians since Russia itself was disinvited from joining NATO, sending a message that it was still seen as an adversary. Ira Straus, founder of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, tells a more complex story in a paper for a 1997 George Washington University conference on Russia and NATO.

Russia first expressed cautious interest in NATO membership in 1991, when NATO was not prepared to admit any Eastern Bloc countries. By the time the admission of former Communist states was seriously considered, Boris Yeltsin's administration was already backing away from its embrace of the West, mainly as a result of pressure from the neo-Communists and nationalists who scored victories in the 1993 and 1995 Duma elections. In 1995, pro-Western foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev was replaced by Evgeny Primakov, who, Straus writes, emphasized "multipolarism" and (foreshadowing the leitmotif of the Putin-era Russian political elite) criticized "American attempts at unipolar domination of the world through NATO."

Initially, supporters of NATO expansion envisioned Russia's eventual inclusion, and Yeltsin seemed receptive to the idea. But NATO enlargement soon became a bone of contention. Straus writes that in the mid-1990s, the United States often misinterpreted Russia's opposition to the fast-track admission of smaller states into a Russia-less NATO as opposition to expansion per se. Russia in turn sent many conflicting signals. Above all, it was clearly unwilling to commit to a broad acceptance of NATO strategic policy, one of the main criteria for membership set in the organization's 1995 "Study on NATO Enlargement." This was a serious hurdle, since NATO operates by consensus, giving every member country a de facto veto over the alliance's policies.

Samantha Power dismisses Russia's inclusion in NATO's 1994 "Partnership for Peace" as "largely symbolic." Yet the partnership's framework document not only provided for extensive military cooperation but gave each member guarantees that it would be consulted by NATO about any perceived threats to its security. Straus wrote, in 1997, that Russia "held back from full participation" in the Partnership "due to domestic pressures [and] to suspicions of NATO." This was followed by the creation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. Its work included not only joint anti-terrorism efforts but programs that provided job training and other assistance to discharged military personnel in Russia.

Bonner believes that, far from treating Russia as an enemy out of habit, Western politicians and pundits have been too prone to "wishful thinking" in treating it as an ally in the war on terror. Says Bonner, "Russia wasn't even treated as an equal partner but a favored child who was petted and given treats." 

One such treat was an invitation to join the G7 group of industrial democracies in 1998. Despite Russia's dubious qualifications for membership in a club based on such criteria as economic performance, political stability, and low level of corruption, the group became the G8. In January 2006, after Putin had crushed his independent media and political opposition, Russia actually assumed chairmanship of the G8--just as its Freedom House ranking slipped from "partly free" to "not free." (According to a December 2005 National Public Radio report, some eternal optimists hoped that giving Russia G8 leadership would encourage liberal tendencies.)

Much Western hand-wringing over Russia's wounded pride seems to accept the premise that Russia is entitled to dominate its smaller neighbors and to have its ego coddled as no other former empire has had. Such entitlement is also deeply entrenched in the mindset of many Russians. "At least they used to be afraid of us" is a sentiment I heard repeatedly on my trips to Russia in the early 1990s. Another popular phrase in those days, "za derzhavu obidno," can be roughly translated as "makes you feel bad for the country," but really means much more: derzhava has overtones of "great power" and "autocratic state"; obidno conveys shame, hurt and resentment. With such a mentality, Putin's bully rhetoric--"Russia can rise from its knees and sock it to you good and hard," he remarked in 1999--found an eager audience.

The painful humiliation of Germany after World War II had one major positive aspect: The Nazi virus was purged from the nation's system. Russia never truly confronted or rejected the evil of its Communist past. Yeltsin, to his credit, sought to do just that. He outlawed the Communist party (which successfully challenged the ban in court) and spoke of the Soviet Union as "the evil empire." This changed under Putin, whose idea of resurgent Russian pride includes celebrating Soviet-era "accomplishments" while treating the crimes as deplorable, but fundamentally no worse than the blots on any other nation's history.

The new Russia bristles at any effort to account for those crimes, be it Ukraine's attempt to have the state-engineered famine of 1932-33 recognized as genocide by the United Nations or Estonia's prosecution of veteran Communist Arnold Meri for his role in the deportation of Estonian "undesirables" in 1949. In July, the Russian foreign ministry issued a peevish protest against President Bush's Captive Nations Week proclamation that mentioned "the evils of Soviet Communism and Nazi fascism," decrying it as an attempt to "continue the Cold War." "But how can it not continue," asked Soviet-era dissident Alexander Podrabinek in an article on the EJ.ru website, "when those in charge of Russia's foreign policy openly try to whitewash Communist ideology?"

National humiliation is not a thing to wish on anyone. But perhaps, after Russia's 20th-century history, a few lessons in humility would have been useful--and well deserved.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor to -Reason, is author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood. 



© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15453&R=13BBE399D


----------



## time expired (30 Aug 2008)

After reading thread after thread of pro Russian drivel it is a breath
of fresh air to read an accurate description of what the problems are
with Russia.It is a imperialistic,expansionist country with a population
who have never known democracy and shows very little interest in
in the idea. The Russians seem to feel we in the West have somehow 
stolen their birthright and maybe they are to a certain extent right,we
have certainly cramped their ability to bully their neighbours,at least until
now.The  perceived weakness of the Western reaction to their latest 
adventure will be looked at with great interest in the Kremlin and they
are probably planning their next push,at a guess, the Ukraine.
The Russians that I met here in Lahr fall into 2 categories,very arrogant,
and those that feel that they are somehow owed something by us in
the West,they both share a strong anti Americanism and contempt for
for the German society and its laws.
The pro Russian tone of some of the posters on this thread I can only 
subscribe to the usual anti Americanism and as most of the pro Russian
posters have little in their profiles I can only assume they are students
who seem to feel that views of us old cold war warriors have little or no
credibility. 
                Regards
.


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> The Russians that I met here in Lahr fall into 2 categories,very arrogant,
> and those that feel that they are somehow owed something by us in
> the West,they both share a strong anti Americanism and contempt for
> for the German society and its laws.



Well if the Germans had killed 25 million of your countrymen during the Second World War alone-you might view German society with contempt also.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Well if the Germans had killed 25 million of your countrymen during the Second World War alone-you might view German society with contempt also.



The "Russians" to whom time expired was referring may likely be from among the many "ethnic German" refugees from Soviet controlled territory that were moved to the Lahr area with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Former Canadian married quarters were quickly filled with them and they did little to either endear themselves to the local population or make much effort to assimilate into the community.  It has been several years since I been through Lahr but speaking to friends in the area, the situation hasn't changed much.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Well if the Germans had killed 25 million of your countrymen during the Second World War alone-you might view German society with contempt also.



Friggin hilarious.  These people are not what you just insinuated they are.  They are ethnic Germans, who when the wall came down, had to prove their heritage as being German.  Millions of former Soviet Bloc peoples took advantage of the 'West' German Government's decision to allow ethnic Germans return home.  In that mix, came a large number of Russian Mafia and people conditioned by the Soviet Regime to expect the Government to give them everything.  Welfare recipients all.

So stegner, get your facts straight.


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Friggin hilarious.  These people are not what you just insinuated they are.  They are ethnic Germans, who when the wall came down, had to prove their heritage as being German.  Millions of former Soviet Bloc peoples took advantage of the 'West' German Government's decision to allow ethnic Germans return home.  In that mix, came a large number of Russian Mafia and people conditioned by the Soviet Regime to expect the Government to give them everything.  Welfare recipients all.
> 
> So stegner, get your facts straight.


Well perhaps Time expired should have clarified what these folks actually are.  I am not a mind reader.   He just mentioned Russians.  Not Russians that are actually ethnic Germans.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The "Russians" to whom time expired was referring may likely be from among the many "ethnic German" refugees from Soviet controlled territory that were moved to the Lahr area with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Former Canadian married quarters were quickly filled with them and they did little to either endear themselves to the local population or make much effort to assimilate into the community.  It has been several years since I been through Lahr but speaking to friends in the area, the situation hasn't changed much.



Exactly!

Well, it has changed quite a bit.  German laws have changed quite a bit in the last decade, and many 'Gaste' Workers are now proud owners of shops, businesses and restaurants.  There are many traffic circles where there were once traffic lights.  The Kasserne is a Ghost Town.  The Airfield is an Industrial Park and International Airport (flights to England).  The Snr NCO's Qtrs seem to be abandoned. 

.........And the crime rate is no longer at 500%.


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .........And the crime rate is no longer at 500%.



Yikes!


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Yikes!



Yes.  When the Canadians left, and the 'Russian' Germans moved in, the Crime Rate in that whole Region rose 500%.  A real shock to the Region.  

The new tenants of the former Canadian residences were, in many cases, leaches on the Social System.  I figure it will take two or three generations before the work ethics of the West are 'bred' into the 'newcomers'.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are "Anti-West"; just that they expect everything to be given to them, without any effort on their part.  Perhaps an attitude developed as citizens of a Soviet Regime.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Exactly!
> 
> Well, it has changed quite a bit.  German laws have changed quite a bit in the last decade, and many 'Gaste' Workers are now proud owners of shops, businesses and restaurants. . . .



Perhaps, instead of having written "speaking to friends in the area, the situation hasn't changed much", I should have said, there are still strong feelings (in some quarters) that if locals had the choice between "ethnic Germans" and Canadians, the "Der K" would still be publishing.  There are probably still some ill-feelings between the locals and the "Russians".


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Aug 2008)

But at least the Thursday morning greenies at the main gate got excatly what they wanted, congratulations.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (31 Aug 2008)

I have been going through a book called Chechnya - Russia's War on Terror  by John Russell and I have come across some interesting concepts regarding Russian nationalism.  The following three themes seemed relevant to the thread:

a. _ Derzhavnost _ - This is the idea that Russia is a great power and must remain so.  

b.  _Gosudarstvennost_ - The idea that Russia can only be held together as a great power through a strong centralized government

c.  _Siloviki_ - the leaders of Russian law and order ministries.  These folks are estimated to comprise 58% of the current top Russian leadership, as opposed to 25% under Gorbachev.  I have read in other books that under the Soviet regime the KGB and other security folks were balanced out by the Communist Party and the Army but this appears to have changed.

The author notes that the first two concepts are linked with the feeling that Russia's borders must be maintained and that republics that broke away should be reclaimed if possible.  

The author was writing with regards to Chechnya, but I think that his observations are somewhat relevent to the issue at hand.


----------

