The State of Affairs in Russia

[crazy canuck]

I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.

That isn't what I am talking about though.

The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.

Here is a piece which is a bit more nuanced that explains the fear the Soviets had.  It is lengthy so I have pulled some quotes.

The historical baggage of the relationships between NATO and Russia and between the West and Russia cannot simply be ignored. And not all our disagreements are simply based on misunderstandings. Some of them are of a fundamental nature and, hence, will not disappear quickly.

In Russian historical memory, there were five major invasions when 'the West' sent its military to 'destroy' Russia: the Polish occupation of the Kremlin in the early 17th century, the Swedish attack in the early 18th century, the Napoleon invasion of 1812, and two wars with Germany in the first half of the 20th century. In each case, the very existence of the Russian state was threatened. In this way, suspicion and fear of the West developed in the Russian mentality, even before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

NATO was immediately perceived by the Soviet leaders as the enemy – an 'aggressive tool of American imperialism.' Moscow took seriously the declarations about the 'roll-back of communism.' The US nuclear monopoly allowed the Pentagon to prepare for a preventive nuclear attack on the USSR. The Soviet planners, therefore, relied on the Soviet Union's huge conventional forces, which did not have a match in Central Europe.

The admission of West Germany into NATO alarmed the Soviet leaders. In two world wars, Russians had come to recognize the awesome might of the German army and they viewed the Bundeswehr as a continuation of the Wehrmacht. The USSR responded to West Germany's admission by creating the Warsaw Pact organization, thus consolidating its control over Eastern Europe and mobilizing its resources to oppose NATO

Much more in link if you or others are interested.

[Sheilbh]

In Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863

I think this is a bit disputed though.

Stephen Kotkin's take in book two of his Stalin biography gives an interesting account of this - he argues against a deliberate Holodomor. More that it was the inevitable result of Stalin's policies and decisions (and notes that actually proportionally the areas that were worst hit by collectivisation and de-kulakisation were Central Asia because it destroyed the pastoral economy that still hadn't recovered by the time Brezhnev came to power). For him it's a bit more like a Soviet Great Leap Forward in the combination of an absolutely catastrophic policy, aggressively policed, misreported to the centre and backed by a voluntarist mentality that with enough will they could produce a gigantic harvest the next year.

Obviously that's nothing to Ukrainian historical memory which is that it was very much a deliberate genocide - and that memory matters more.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, yes certainly there is dispute.  I just wanted to point out it is not as simplistic as Malthus put it.

[Sheilbh]

Oh, yes certainly there is dispute.  I just wanted to point out it is not as simplistic as Malthus put it.

Fair - and I think the famine and impact in Central Asia is something that I think is really missing in the story about the Great Famine. Because I'd never even heard of it before I read Kotkin's book but I think the death rate in Kazakhstan, for example, was around 25-30%. It's a huge tragedy and I think there's a couple of books on it now, but surprisingly unknown.

[Malthus]

The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.

People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.

Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.

If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.

Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...

I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.

Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus.  When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine.  It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire. 

One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy.  While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse.  Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.

In Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863

I definitely agree! I was merely pointing out how **Russians** view the matter. Not how **I** view the matter.

I've actually read *Red Famine* and my own views are more in line with those of my wife, who is Ukrainian, and whose maternal grandparents survived the Holodomor.

To clarify: many Russians I have discussed the matter with believe Ukrainians ought to hold no legimitate beef with Russia over past atrocities by Soviet or Tsarist leaders, because in these Russian minds, they are not crimes committed by Russia against Ukraine, but by various imperial leaders against "Russians" located in Ukraine and also elsewhere in "Russia".

Ukrainians, on the other hand, tend to feel these are in fact crimes often committed deliberately to squash Ukrainian nationalism by "Russian" leaders.

I myself believe the Ukrainians have the better argument.

[crazy canuck]

I definitely agree! I was merely pointing out how **Russians** view the matter. Not how **I** view the matter.

[Berkut]

I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.

That isn't what I am talking about though.

The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.

Here is a piece which is a bit more nuanced that explains the fear the Soviets had.  It is lengthy so I have pulled some quotes.

The historical baggage of the relationships between NATO and Russia and between the West and Russia cannot simply be ignored. And not all our disagreements are simply based on misunderstandings. Some of them are of a fundamental nature and, hence, will not disappear quickly.

In Russian historical memory, there were five major invasions when 'the West' sent its military to 'destroy' Russia: the Polish occupation of the Kremlin in the early 17th century, the Swedish attack in the early 18th century, the Napoleon invasion of 1812, and two wars with Germany in the first half of the 20th century. In each case, the very existence of the Russian state was threatened. In this way, suspicion and fear of the West developed in the Russian mentality, even before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

NATO was immediately perceived by the Soviet leaders as the enemy – an 'aggressive tool of American imperialism.' Moscow took seriously the declarations about the 'roll-back of communism.' The US nuclear monopoly allowed the Pentagon to prepare for a preventive nuclear attack on the USSR. The Soviet planners, therefore, relied on the Soviet Union's huge conventional forces, which did not have a match in Central Europe.

The admission of West Germany into NATO alarmed the Soviet leaders. In two world wars, Russians had come to recognize the awesome might of the German army and they viewed the Bundeswehr as a continuation of the Wehrmacht. The USSR responded to West Germany's admission by creating the Warsaw Pact organization, thus consolidating its control over Eastern Europe and mobilizing its resources to oppose NATO

Much more in link if you or others are interested.

Yeah, but they did in fact create a massive conventional army that dwarfed any NATO conventional forces, and again, the idea of NATO invading the USSR was ridiculous. Yes, I know you can find lots of Russians going on about Poland in the 17th century, but they don't belive anymore than we do - that in fact today, Putin is actually worried about NATO invading Russia because Poland did it three centuries ago.

You can find all kind of talk from Tucker Carlson about how the election was stolen as well. That doesn't mean he actually believes it, anymore then Putin believes that they need a Ukrainian buffer state to protect them from ravening hordes of Leopard tanks (both of them, presumably) sweeping across the Don.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

[Berkut]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.


Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.

Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.

But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.

Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.

[grumbler]

Which democratic processes was he undermining?

If anything, the elections in Ukraine worked well, unlike in Russia.

The democratic process by which the democratically elected Parliament impeached him and then, when he fled rather than face the impeachment proceedings, removed him from office, following which he appealed to Russia to overthrow the democratically elected parliament.  The vote to remove him was 328-to-0 with 122 abstentions.  That's democracy working when a democratically-elected president tries to rule by fiat and is deposed.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

Yeah - as I say I actually think Putin's view on Russian "security" is the same as has always driven Russia as Zoups put it. It's maybe a little cold war but also partly just a very long-standing fear because of Russia's geography.

I also think it's really key to try to understand the extent of the paranoia and fear in the leadership of the USSR - from the very start - because it drove their policy to a huge extent. I sort of go to the other extreme of Berk, I think it's the only way to make sense of the cold war and Soviet Union.

I think the Soviet Union/Tsarist restorationist angle on Putin is overstated, however.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.


Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.

Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.

But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.

Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.

Great, you don't believe it so no one did.  The world doesn't really work that way Berkut.  No matter how much you think it should.

[Berkut]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

Yeah - as I say I actually think Putin's view on Russian "security" is the same as has always driven Russia as Zoups put it. It's maybe a little cold war but also partly just a very long-standing fear because of Russia's geography.

I also think it's really key to try to understand the extent of the paranoia and fear in the leadership of the USSR - from the very start - because it drove their policy to a huge extent. I sort of go to the other extreme of Berk, I think it's the only way to make sense of the cold war and Soviet Union.

I think the Soviet Union/Tsarist restorationist angle on Putin is overstated, however.

I don't think it is hard to udnerstand the Cold War and the USSR at all.

They wanted to spread communism and their power as far as they could. The West was in their way. Hence the cold war.

You don't need to actually believe some fair tale about the West's imminent invasion of the USSR to explain their actions at all - indeed, their actions become much less explicable if you really believed that their overriding concern was stopping another invasion of the USSR after 1960 or so. Once the Soviets had nukes, the deterrent to invasion was never going to be a few more tank divisions.

And today? Pfshaw. It's beyond silly. There is no way Putin believes that the West is going to invade Russia. He is way to smart to believe something to obviously idiotic. It doesn't make any sense.

[Berkut]

Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up.  You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade.  But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.

Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.

I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.


Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.

Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.

But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.

Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.

Great, you don't believe it so no one did.  The world doesn't really work that way Berkut.  No matter how much you think it should.

I am not claiming the world works that way, but thank for yet another CC strawman.

I am saying what I think is true. I am saying that because you said I was ignoring "what they actually thought". And no, I am NOT ignoring it, I am saying that just because they SAY that is what they think, that doesn't mean that is actually what they think, and providing reasons for why I think they were not being honest about their views.

I am quite sure at no point did I argue that they didn't believe it because I don't believe it.

Do you think Tucker Carlson believes that the elections was stolen from Trump? He says he believes it, so we MUST accept that he does in fact believe it....right? Even if that makes no sense?

[viper37]

From what I know, that Maidan was not legitimate. It was a violent, unconstitutional coup.

The constitutional changes by the Russian puppet were illegal, many judges had been forced to retire before the vote, others pressured to vote in favour.

Hence why the people finally had enough and rebelled, with all the corruption and croniism going around.

Same here.

No, they are totally different situations.  One was based on the myth that the election was stolen, the other was based on serious accusations that the President was a traitorous scumbag paid by Putin.

The rejection of the Euro-deal in favour of a bailout by Russia was just the last straw.

The circus must go on.

With some help from a friendly neighbor