So, do I have this right? I'm trying to piece together the difficult history of relations between the US and Russia since the end of WWII. With Russia's expansion into the USSR after the war, Europe, Canada and the US entered into the NATO pact to counter any USSR ideas of further expansion. Russia stationed nukes in Ukraine to make clea…
So, do I have this right? I'm trying to piece together the difficult history of relations between the US and Russia since the end of WWII. With Russia's expansion into the USSR after the war, Europe, Canada and the US entered into the NATO pact to counter any USSR ideas of further expansion. Russia stationed nukes in Ukraine to make clear they intended to defend their territory. Then, in 1994, when the USSR dissolved, Ukraine agreed to send its nukes back to Russia to be decommissioned in exchange for security assurances from the West and from Russia. Notice that they were "security assurances," not "security guarantees," and provided no details about just how secure such assurances would be. The memorandum specified no details. Because of this, the US has been able to avoid actually coming to Ukraine's direct defense. It should be noted that there have never been any nuclear warheads stationed directly on Russia's border. The closest was Turkey, but this was removed in exchange for Russia removing nukes from Cuba in order to resolve the Cuban Missle Crisis. Nevertheless, even though the US had not made any promises not to expand NATO eastward into the countries liberated by the breakdown of the USSR, Yeltsin might have thought that was implied by the policy of "friendship and partnership" that was entered into between Yeltsin and Bush in 1992, and Yeltsin might, therefore, have felt that the expansion of NATO into Poland was a betrayal. I don't get how he could have been so naïve. But then, how could we have been so naïve as to think that the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for "security guarantees" would have deterred Putin from trying to annex Ukraine? But, I always like to remind us progressives that if we were to be honest, we would have to take some responsibility for creating this situation ourselves. We created the conditions in Russia that had the end result of installing Putin into power. We responded to Russia's request for guidance from the US for engineering the transition from a socialist to a capitalist economy by sending a group of U. of Chicago economists who recommended a cold turkey transformation. This resulted in such a dramatic and tragic breakdown of the economic and financial support systems that the Russian people were literally starving and willing to surrender their stocks in the old socialist economy for a pittance to what then because the oligarchs now supporting Putin. Putin came in and re-established an order and rescued the country from anarchical take-over by the Russian Mafia, and that is why they are still grateful and loyal to him. Essentially, it was our screwed up foreign policy that caused the conditions that brought Putin to power, and now we are faced with having to rescue poor Ukraine from the monster we created.
Shea, as I see the problem, Progressivism has been folded into Marxism, or vice versa, and Marxists have a lingering affection for Russia
There are leftists who are as Manichean as rightists. For leftists it is capitalism, evil, bad, socialism good.For rightists isocialism is evil bad, capitalism good.
And there are "leaders" spokesmen on all sides who have built careers, income, acclaim, fame, awards being apostles of their ideology.
Gorbachev, following a diktat of the Bank for International Settlements, deconstructs the USSR, opening it up to exploitation by capitalists, and Yeltsin sold off the trusts to KGB connected who became oligarchs, and Putin became President
One can be a progressive without being a Marxist (Marx was actually a proto libertarian)
but ideologies are exclusivist.
Religions are Ideologies. and Religions are exclusivist
Thanks William for your response. I totally agree. Having been “educated” by the far Left, I too see these entrenched “camps” as irrelevant, and self-defeating. I have no time for the “overthrow capitalism” crowd. Capitalism is the union of free enterprise and industrialization. Do we really want to eliminate those? No, capitalism can be bridled so that its natural tendency to funnel wealth towards the top is countered and wealth circulates for the benefit of all. I am in the process (as soon as I can master Substack’s system) of posting to Substack a fairly long piece containing memories and conclusions regarding the US Communist Party which you might find interesting. At least I’d be interested in your response.
Yes interested, you can contact me by clicking on my name and choosing Message.
In the meantime I am weary and wary of ideologues. Ideologues are believers.
Believers are thoughtless, they have abandoned their responsibility and ability (if they ever had such) for critical thinking. The live in a zero sum world
Ideologies are secular as well as sectarian. Christianity and Islam are secular ideologies, but ideologies just the same, only they call themselves religions, as a form of market segmentation.
Once, one adopts the premises of an ideology, as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are no longer their own person, they have become part of the Borg (recalling Star trek)
So, do I have this right? I'm trying to piece together the difficult history of relations between the US and Russia since the end of WWII. With Russia's expansion into the USSR after the war, Europe, Canada and the US entered into the NATO pact to counter any USSR ideas of further expansion. Russia stationed nukes in Ukraine to make clear they intended to defend their territory. Then, in 1994, when the USSR dissolved, Ukraine agreed to send its nukes back to Russia to be decommissioned in exchange for security assurances from the West and from Russia. Notice that they were "security assurances," not "security guarantees," and provided no details about just how secure such assurances would be. The memorandum specified no details. Because of this, the US has been able to avoid actually coming to Ukraine's direct defense. It should be noted that there have never been any nuclear warheads stationed directly on Russia's border. The closest was Turkey, but this was removed in exchange for Russia removing nukes from Cuba in order to resolve the Cuban Missle Crisis. Nevertheless, even though the US had not made any promises not to expand NATO eastward into the countries liberated by the breakdown of the USSR, Yeltsin might have thought that was implied by the policy of "friendship and partnership" that was entered into between Yeltsin and Bush in 1992, and Yeltsin might, therefore, have felt that the expansion of NATO into Poland was a betrayal. I don't get how he could have been so naïve. But then, how could we have been so naïve as to think that the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for "security guarantees" would have deterred Putin from trying to annex Ukraine? But, I always like to remind us progressives that if we were to be honest, we would have to take some responsibility for creating this situation ourselves. We created the conditions in Russia that had the end result of installing Putin into power. We responded to Russia's request for guidance from the US for engineering the transition from a socialist to a capitalist economy by sending a group of U. of Chicago economists who recommended a cold turkey transformation. This resulted in such a dramatic and tragic breakdown of the economic and financial support systems that the Russian people were literally starving and willing to surrender their stocks in the old socialist economy for a pittance to what then because the oligarchs now supporting Putin. Putin came in and re-established an order and rescued the country from anarchical take-over by the Russian Mafia, and that is why they are still grateful and loyal to him. Essentially, it was our screwed up foreign policy that caused the conditions that brought Putin to power, and now we are faced with having to rescue poor Ukraine from the monster we created.
Shea, as I see the problem, Progressivism has been folded into Marxism, or vice versa, and Marxists have a lingering affection for Russia
There are leftists who are as Manichean as rightists. For leftists it is capitalism, evil, bad, socialism good.For rightists isocialism is evil bad, capitalism good.
And there are "leaders" spokesmen on all sides who have built careers, income, acclaim, fame, awards being apostles of their ideology.
Gorbachev, following a diktat of the Bank for International Settlements, deconstructs the USSR, opening it up to exploitation by capitalists, and Yeltsin sold off the trusts to KGB connected who became oligarchs, and Putin became President
One can be a progressive without being a Marxist (Marx was actually a proto libertarian)
but ideologies are exclusivist.
Religions are Ideologies. and Religions are exclusivist
Thanks William for your response. I totally agree. Having been “educated” by the far Left, I too see these entrenched “camps” as irrelevant, and self-defeating. I have no time for the “overthrow capitalism” crowd. Capitalism is the union of free enterprise and industrialization. Do we really want to eliminate those? No, capitalism can be bridled so that its natural tendency to funnel wealth towards the top is countered and wealth circulates for the benefit of all. I am in the process (as soon as I can master Substack’s system) of posting to Substack a fairly long piece containing memories and conclusions regarding the US Communist Party which you might find interesting. At least I’d be interested in your response.
Yes interested, you can contact me by clicking on my name and choosing Message.
In the meantime I am weary and wary of ideologues. Ideologues are believers.
Believers are thoughtless, they have abandoned their responsibility and ability (if they ever had such) for critical thinking. The live in a zero sum world
Ideologies are secular as well as sectarian. Christianity and Islam are secular ideologies, but ideologies just the same, only they call themselves religions, as a form of market segmentation.
Once, one adopts the premises of an ideology, as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are no longer their own person, they have become part of the Borg (recalling Star trek)