Mirror, mirror upon the wall . . .

My only comment is that you’re right.

And not surprisingly mine was quite the opposite.

Cyrill

Just read your article Sean, was very interesting, well put and I agree totally with what you’re saying. Its easier to point at people whom you think are bad just to make yourself feel better about yourself. Happens all the time in everyday life.

I also agree that a great deal of the commentary on Russia is really about us (did we do a good job advising Russia in the 90s or did we destroy Russia with our advice?) and about projecting our values (so Russia is either bad for reprivatizing or really good for reprivatizing, depending on what we think about private ownership of natural resources). And I absolutely agree that there is a big dose of “gosh, aren’t those Russians just so weird.” But… but…there must be a way to write about the pretty terrible things happening here that doesn’t dissolve into useless relativism or сам дурак. I mean, just because we do it doesn’t make it okay to do it; it just makes two countries doing bad things in sometimes different and sometimes similar ways. And isn’t there some of the opposite kind of projecting? I mean, if someone writes about corruption in Russia, don’t some posters here presume AHA! So you think there is no corruption in the US! (And not just one poster.) Or: AHA! So that means you propose to keep Russia out of WTO!

Oh, I think a lot of foreign reporting is in essence a modern form of 18th- and 19th-century travel fiction, a la Gulliver’s Travels and the far inferior works of which it was a parody. They aim to entertain the public with tales of far-off, exotic lands, while at the same time providing commentary that resonates with the readership’s worldview, very often projecting domestic concerns onto the foreign situation. I mean, how many US articles ostensibly about Putin have you seen that are really about Bush and the Patriot Act? I would bet a lot.

I add that I think that much of the reason Russia gets such a focus in the Western press is simple: Bush likes Putin. Therefore, he and Condy like to keep Russia on the agenda. Therefore, Russia gets focussed on. Attacking Russia is a means of attacking Bush. Attacking Rusia is also a means of defending Bush, because one can then say “you accuse Bush of being soft on Russia? But look, we’re yelling at them about democracy too!” All politics is local and all that.

Mab, I think the annoyance factor of a lot of foreign coverage of Russia and other places is because there is a grand narrative that has been constructed into which events are placed. Compare coverage of ethnic conflict in Russia (Kondopoga for example) to conflicts in India. No one was killed in the riots in Kondopoga (the three deaths being of ethnic Russians in a brawl that sparked the riot). Ethnic and religious conflicts in India kill hundreds. But India, in the narrative, is supposed to be “India shining,” “the world’s largest democracy,” whereas Russia is supposed to be a hotbed of racism. Or compare coverage of Chechnya and Kashmir.

Or even coverage of Russia and China. Coverage of Russia is “90% threat to democracy, 10% booming economy,” whereas the Chinese coverage is “10% one-party dictatorship that controls everything, 90% booming economy.”

CM, I don’t disagree with what you write, only I think you rather paint yourself into a corner. Maybe not. Maybe I don’t get what you are proposing.

The thing is, I paid attention to Kondopoga because it was an escalation (numbers involved, violence, and organizers joining in from other places) and because it occurred in the context of social and political life (skins, organized skins, russia for russians, general anti-foreigner mood, etc.) So it got on my radar screen. I don’t think it means that the whole country is about to errupt in race and ethnic riots; I don’t think it means that Russians are overwhelmingly racist or nationalistic; I don’t think it means: next step, forced labor camps for non-Russians. But it was a worrying event and I would have written about it that way. Would you suggest not writing about it because it plays into the grand narrative against Russia? Or because it’s not as bad as, say, India?

Perhaps I’m exaggerating your position; I don’t mean to. But I think there are three issues: 1) description and analysis of what’s happening in Russia 2) what other countries might do in response and 3) what other countries do that is the same or worse. I don’t think you change or keep quiet about (1) because of (2) or (3).

“The thing is, I paid attention to Kondopoga because it was an escalation (numbers involved, violence, and organizers joining in from other places) and because it occurred in the context of social and political life (skins, organized skins, russia for russians, general anti-foreigner mood, etc.) So it got on my radar screen.”

Omitted:

English language mass media and its Russian counterpart have provided a barrage of commentary and editorialized reporting on the recent ethnic violence in Karelia. In some circles, the ethno-religious factor (light-skinned Slavs versus darker skinned people of Muslim background) has been trumpeted in a way that downplays other contributing factors to the situation. It’s tempting for media elites to see the subject of racial tension as a ticket for a wider audience. Racial issues seem to draw a better rating over economic discussions. The bashers of Russia and its president are at the forefront in sensationalizing an intricate socio-economic matter, involving different ethnic groups.

A September 7, ‘06, Moscow Times column “Racists Step in Where Leaders Fail to Tread” ( http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/09/07/006.html ) suggests an uncaring Russian president of a country on the brink of a nationwide race war. This slant ignores several realities. Throughout his presidency, Vladimir Putin has made strident statements against ethnic extremism. Last week, Putin was bogged down in Africa with key foreign policy issues. In large multi-ethnically populated Western countries, the heads of state don’t always jump into the fray when there’s a Karelia-like conflict. That’s because those countries have individuals and organizations in place to deal with such conditions. Russia is no different. There’s an assortment of Russian government and non-government related activity which is actively monitoring the situation in Karelia.

Running contrary to the “hot story” media aim of fame and fortune, is the earnest societal objective to limit and eventually eradicate ethno-religious strife. This desire involves the somewhat mundane approach of comprehensively reviewing all of the contributing factors. The mentioned Moscow Times article falls well short in advancing that goal.

A September 8, ‘06, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article “Russia: Race Not the Only Factor Behind Karelian Violence” ( http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/9/b6116ffa-bff8-48bb-99f4-e3125a8b21f2.html ) acknowledges the claims of non-ethnic factors. The RFE/RL piece proceeds to detail the claims of ethnic strife. It states that non-Russian organized crime elements have succeeded in making deals with the local authorities in some largely ethnic Russian inhabited areas. These advantageous arrangements have raised the ire of the ethnic Russian inhabitants, who witness unethical business practices that include the shaking down of small businesses for protection money. A Russian nationalist presence and a list of prior ethnic incidents are highlighted in this piece. The suggestion being that an element in Russian society is a main culprit, with Russia having a severe lack of inter-ethnic harmony.

The October 9, ‘06, Moscow News article “Brawl Erupts into Pogrom in Traditionally Tranquil North” ( http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2006-34-5 ) does a reasonably good job at straight news reporting. It follows up with some added insight that’s lacking in the two previously discussed articles. The Moscow News piece uses a bit of hyperbole with the loaded use of “pogrom” which means an organized massacre of people. Though an ugly affair that left two dead, the events in Karelia weren’t on the level of an actual pogrom.

Russia is on an economic rebound. This attracts legal and illegal emigration from poorer former Soviet republics. Coupled with this is the emigration of Russian citizens from the poorer regions of Russia into the wealthier ones. In both instances, there’s the clear sight of dark skinned people descending into areas inhabited by mostly fairer skinned individuals.

It’s misleading to leave that background as is. Some of the wealthier areas in Russia have had a noticeable number of darker non-ethnic Russian peoples, who have lived in peace with ethnic Russians for a prolonged period.

The not so media sexy economics issue is a primary reason for the violence. The National Organization of Russian Muslims ( http://www.pravoverie.org/ ) found plenty of fault in the way that a good number of the newly arrived misbehave. The misbehavior is very much related to the existing economic disposition that they experience. It’s therefore shortsighted to fault Russian extremist groups as the primary problem.

In conjunction with the RFE/RL article, just how inaccurate (or accurate) is the following: among the newly arrived, there’s evidence of close-knit Mafia families, who upon arrival, bribe the very low salaried local police with drug money and through threats, intimidation and murder – establish a “turf,” collecting “protection money” from business owners, shopkeepers and street merchants. In Moscow, at the close of business in the evening, I’ve heard several different eyewitness accounts of small non-Slavic looking gangs shaking down elderly women selling vegetables. This past weekend, someone forwarded to me a related perspective from another source ( http://konstantin2005.blogspot.com/2006/09/kondopoga.html ).

The willingness to discuss ethnic Russian political extremism and organized crime shouldn’t exclude an accounting of the non-ethnic Russian variant. I’m not at all convinced that the unfortunate situation is on the verge of spiraling out of control. Russia’s strength is its relatively good legacy (when compared to other countries) of multi-ethnic tolerance ( http://www.russiablog.org/2005/12/on_being_russian.html ).

The violently high profile crimes against Rodney King, Yusuf Hawkins, Yankel Rosenbaum and Abner Louima weren’t so long ago (there were other such incidents, which linger on). During this period, I never felt that America was on the verge of a major race war. My main Russian contacts are a rationally minded lot, who don’t hold back in critiquing their country’s ills. All of them share my views on the recent violence in Karelia.

No, what bugs me is not the reporting of events but the spin that is put on it, often involving reworking of the facts. For instance, I have seen many reports on Kondopoga that stated that “three people died in the riots.” Actually, nobody died in the riots, but that doesn’t fit the image the writer is trying to create (or believes in there), so history gets rewritten.

As an aside, given how many ethnic conflicts there are, it’s interesting that Kondopoga in particular attracted attention. Here’s a list of recent ones I got from Kommersant:

Auguest 2000 — in the stanitsa of Kletskaya in Volgograd Oblast the murder of Roman Lopatin in a disco leads to demands that all Chechens be resettled and no longer allowed to enter, and then to burning of Chechen homes.

March 2001 — In Rostov Oblast Cossacks destroyed Chechen property after a mass fight in the town of Bogorodintskoe.

21 April 2001 — In Moscow, around 200 people arranged a pogrom in a market in Yasenevo, destroying about 30 stands. 10 people suffered, mostly traders from Azerbaijan.

30 October 2001 — In Moscow, around 300 young people armed with metal clubs attacked markets around the metro stations Tsaritsyno, Kakhovskaya and Kashirskaya, beating traders from the Caucasus. 4 people were killed, over 80 suffered.

May 2002 — In Chastoozer’e in Kurgan Oblast a fight occured between Russians and Chechens in which over 400 people took part.

June 2002 — Two large events occured. In Uglich in Yaroslavl Oblast, after the murder of the 17-year-old Konstantin Blokhin in a town disco a building was burned down in which Chechens lived and the Special Forces were called in to break up masses of local residents and Caucasians that had formed on the central square. And in Krasnoarmeisk near Moscow young people beat several Armenian families and demanded that the town be cleansed of foreigners after an elderly Armenian stabbed the 26-year-old Igor Samolyuk with a knife in the Pal’mira bar. This became the basis for the creation of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, which figured in Kondopoga last year.

15 and 17 September 2003 — In Nalchik, mass fights occured between the local population and Chechen students. On both occasions about 200-300 people took part, and more than 50 suffered. The cause was an argument in a city taxi van, in the course of which several Chechens harshly beat a local resident.

2004 — Nothing! Yay!

March 2005 — In Novorossiisk, 200 Cossacks destroyed several Armenian stores and cafes, beating their owners. The cause was the wounding of a Cossack in a fight that had occured the day before.

6 August 2005 — Conflict between the Dagestani population of Moskhob and the Chechen town of Novosel’skoe (no details given).

18 August 2005 — In the town of Yandyki in Astrakhan Oblast after a young Kalmyk man was killed in a mass fight 300 Kalmyks marched through the town, beating Chechens and burning their residences. (Ah, those peaceful Buddhists!)

23 September 2005 — In Nalchik a fight between 200 locals and Chechen students led to a demonstration demanding that all Chechens be expelled from the city.

June 2006 — In Sal’sk in Rostov Oblast an argument over a girl in the cafe Razgulyai grew into a one-on-one fight between a young Russian and a young Dagestani man, then into the group beating of the victor, then into a mass fight between local people and newcomers. One local resident, 29-year-old Yurii Sarychev, was shot. On June 9 city residents held several demonstrations, the first of which “condemned the inactivity of the government,” the second of which (more than 5000 people) suggested expelling all Caucasians, and the third of which demanded the resignation of the entire Sal’sk government.

21 August 2006 — Young (Russian) nationalists detonated a bomb in Moscow’s Cherkizovskii market. 13 people died.

30 August 2006 — Kondopoga in Karelia. After a fight in the Chaika restaurant between local residents and Caucasians left 3 locals dead, meetings were held demanding that all Caucasians be expelled from the city, followed by destruction of Caucasian-owned property. Caucasian population escorted to nearby city.

Also August 30 2006 — A fight occured in the Saratov cafe Vseslav Charodei, in which a group of contract soldiers was celebrating Day of the Armies of Special Assignments (Russia has so many holidays!). The soldiers clashed with a group of young Caucasians, who went and armed themselves with clubs and broken bottles. The 19-year-old soldier Valentin Mazhuga died, and 4 of the other soldiers were hospitalized.

10 September 2006 — In Vol’sk in Saratov a mass fight between Armenians and Russians resulted in the knifings of 4 local residents, onw of whom, Sergei Zyablin, died. After this his friends and family members began a hunt for Armenians studying at the College of Bridges and Hydrotechnology.

Finally, 13 September 2006 — In a vegetable market in Samara, more than 200 armed men “of Slavic appearance” organized a pogrom in a market. However, they encountered opposition from the Azerbaijani traders and fled, having managed to cut one trader.

That’s quite a list. I knew about most, but not all of those incidents. Again, for me the element of the guys who came in to organize the Slavs in Kondopoga was the “escalation” or the worrying moment. Also, Russian TV aired a lot on it, so for me that was a sign that this was something different. But yeah, reporters get a lot wrong. I don’t argue that.

But you aren’t suggesting that you shouldn’t write about this, are you?

“But you aren’t suggesting that you shouldn’t write about this, are you?”

No. But do it competently! Don’t try to use it in ammunition in some crusade, and don’t spin facts to fit your agenda. That happens far too often (I’m looking at you, Fred Weir).

“in the stanitsa of Kletskaya in Volgograd Oblast”

PS Mab oh translator extraordinaire, I know that “stanitsa,” like “khutor,” has Cossack connotations, but is that always the case? Am I to infer that Kletskaya is a Cossack village?

Yeah, Fred surprised me with his coverage.

Oh, I love it when someone asks me a language question that I already looked up and wrote about. Here’s from an column I did on kinds of towns:

“In the south of Russia you can find станица, a large Cossack town uniting smaller villages (it’s also the word for a mounted Cossack patrol in old Russia).”

Aha! Thank you. I did not know that it was also the word for a Cossack patrol pre-Revo.

Weir made so mad I actually wrote a parody memo. It was very cathartic:

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
MEMO
FROM: EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
TO: FRED WEIR

Dear Fred,

Just saw your piece in In These Times, Ethnic Cleansing in Russia, and I’ve got some concerns. I know what you write for other people is on their dollar, but your reputation rubs off on us. Sooo…

Hate to say this, Fred, but we had our fact-checkers have a go at your article. It turns out that _no one_ died during those riots in Kondopoga — the people who died were all ethnic Russians who were killed by Chechen gangbangers in a restaurant, which _started the riots_. This is sloppy work. What’s happened to your sense of cause and effect? Is this the quantum mechanical theory of journalism? I know, images of hordes of unprovoked barbarian Slavs and all, a good seller and all that, but you’re supposed to be a journalist, man!

Second, what’s with the scare quotes around “illegal immigrants”? WTF? What are you trying to pull? We gave a call to the labor experts over at the UN — what’s happening to your calling skills anyway? — and they assured us that 80-90% of immigrants in Russia are working in something they called the “shadow economy” (not sure what that is) and are in fact illegal. Seems to me that if they deport a few hundred out of the 800,000 or so they are legally entitled to, they are probably not going after just anybody. And CUT IT with this “ethnic cleansing” stuff. The CSM does NOT want to go down that road. Do you know how many Arabs and Africans and whatever get deported from the US and EU? Yes you do. We do NOT want the outraged letters saying that we are implying that Washington and Brussels are guilty of ethnic cleansing.

Also, I realize your work is your work and all that, but when trying to link Putin and these anti-immigration guys, don’t you think you should have mentioned that he BANNED THEIR MARCH?!?!?

In short, we’re really worried about you over here. We have a reputation to think about. Shape up, Fred.

Best to the wife and kids!

parody memo — LOL!

I add that I think that much of the reason Russia gets such a focus in the Western press is simple: Bush likes Putin. Therefore, he and Condy like to keep Russia on the agenda. Therefore, Russia gets focussed on. Attacking Russia is a means of attacking Bush. Attacking Rusia is also a means of defending Bush, because one can then say “you accuse Bush of being soft on Russia? But look, we’re yelling at them about democracy too!” All politics is local and all that.

This doesn’t really hold up. First of all, why should Bush’s supposed preferences have anything to do with the Western press as a whole? Doesn’t the “Western press” include many outlets that are not American, including some of the ones that “Russocentric” individuals complain the most about (e.g., the BBC)? Also, it assumes that all press outlets have an agenda, and that it’s a coordinated one across bureaus and individuals – i.e., that the NYT, for example, asks its Moscow correspondents to focus on sticking it to Putin because the paper on the whole wants to stick it to Bush.

Also, even if one admits that some media outlets have as their agendas bashing or supporting certain political figures (and of course some do), I think it requires quite a bit of gymnastics to move from “the Western press wants to stick it to Bush” to “the Western press wants to stick it to Putin” – and then to suggest that sticking it to Putin can also constitute defending Bush.

Much more importantly, you have made the assumption that Bush and Condi “keep Russia on the agenda.” I know it’s hard to tell from Russia (I’m not trying to be a smartass, I really do know that it’s hard to tell, because the Russian government and press – which of course overlap quite a bit! – talk obsessively about whatever anyone in America says about Russia), but Russia is not really on the agenda in Washington. It may be getting marginally more attention now than in the 1990s because it’s become more assertive about some of these important treaties – and maybe that assertiveness is in part the fault of American policymakers who pretty much deprioritized Russia as “not a threat” in the 1990s and didn’t pay it enough attention.

I do agree that, as you and mab both note, silly and self-important (not to say arrogant) debates about “who lost Russia?” do sometimes creep into US coverage of Russia and show that people often care more about keeping score for domestic purposes. Nevertheless, though it may sadden those who long for the days of two superpowers focused raptly on each other, Russia policy will not be a focal point for any of the presidential candidates or for the electorate. So, Russia is not really focused on – it only appears that way to people like us who focus on reading coverage of Russia in the Western press to the exclusion of all the other things covered by the Western press.

Finally, I think there’s a very simple explanation for the varying coverage of China and Russia (India I know less about, but I’ll posit a guess that ethnic violence there is more complex and is often not between a dominant/titular group and a small minority – I could be totally wrong about that, though): on human rights issues and “democracy” (whatever anyone thinks it means, it does mean something to many people) Russia is justifiably held to a higher standard. Remember, Russia describes itself as a democracy and is in the G8. China does not and is not. So, lack of democracy in China is not “news,” it is “dog bites man.” But for Western reporters in Russia, the succession charade conflicts violently with the official Russian gov’t narrative about democracy, and with the aspirations that many in the West and in Russia have or had for Russia to become the kind of country where power can change hands without violence. This is another reason Russia is held to a higher standard – the hopes of 15 years ago (expressed not only by Westerners, but most importantly by Russians, before the 1990s gave them a reality check) are still fresh in people’s minds, and Westerners who report from Russia will still encounter some Russians who retain those hopes and who think that race riots are worth reporting about.

Anyway, if you want to complain about a “grand narrative that has been constructed,” why not complain about the narrative which has been propagated by Russian nationalists for some time and by Putin’s team more recently, namely that Western intelligence services yearned for the breakup of the USSR and now yearn for the breakup of Russia? This is basically bunk, yet it’s reported as fact by major Russian media outlets (the Patrushev interview is priceless – that man has done more with his incompetence to break up Russia than any “Western special services”) and has become accepted as such by the population, to the detriment of any hopes for Russia & the West to have a normal relationship.

But anyway, I’m sure we’ll have to agree to disagree on most of what I’ve rambled on about here. I can accept that much of it is a matter of opinion and perspective. But believe me, as far as I can tell, Russia is not near the top of the agenda in DC. Even if it were, it looks like it’s too late to fix the bilateral relationship – there have been too many perceived slights, and Putin & Co. have found them too useful in uniting Russian public opinion in opposition to a resurrected external enemy.

The coverage of China has become more critical. It will likely become even more so for Bismarckian reasons.

For a good period, Brzezinski was willing to overlook Chinese domestic faults. He argued that China needed the West out of a reasoned fear of the USSR/Russia.

Now, Zbig is arguing that Russia will move closer to the West because of (in his view) the growing clout of China, which will threatean Russia. As per a recent Eric Kraus article in TMT (good move on the latter’s part), this might not happen at all.

As others have noted, human rights is often linked to the dominating foreign policy objectives of the moment. It has been used as a propaganda tool.

“Finally, I think there’s a very simple explanation for the varying coverage of China and Russia (India I know less about, but I’ll posit a guess that ethnic violence there is more complex and is often not between a dominant/titular group and a small minority – I could be totally wrong about that, though):”

I think the different coverage might have something to do with China’s role in the US economy.

India has no titular ethnic group — there is no such nationality as “Indian.” A person in one part of the country very likely speaks a language very different from in the other parts of the country. Violence is however often Hindu vs. Muslim or as a result of real or perceived Hindi domination. Witness the riots in Nizhni Tagil when they attempted to make studying Hindi compulsory in schools.

Actually ethnic violence in Russia, except in the areas predominatly inhabited by ethnic Russians, is not Slavs vs. non-Slavs either. Kalmyks vs. Chechens, Chechens vs. Dagestanis, etc.

“This doesn’t really hold up. First of all, why should Bush’s supposed preferences have anything to do with the Western press as a whole? Doesn’t the “Western press” include many outlets that are not American, including some of the ones that “Russocentric” individuals complain the most about (e.g., the BBC)? Also, it assumes that all press outlets have an agenda,”

I didn’t say they have an agenda. I said they focus on Russia because Bush focusses on Russia.

Sorry, they weren’t rioting in Nizhny Tagil over introduction of Hindi. It’s Tamil Nadu.

Languages of India:

Language Native speakers % Indian population
Hindi 366 34.9%
Bengali 69 6.6%
Telugu 69.6 6.6%
Marathi 68 6.5%
Tamil 46 4.4%
Gujarati 46.1 4.4%
Kannada 35.3 3.4%
Malayalam 35 3.3%
Oriya 32 3.0%
Urdu 30 2.9%
Bhojpuri 26.3 2.5%
Panjabi
(Western) 18 1.7%
Assamese 15.3 1.5%
Panjabi
(Eastern) 14 1.3%
Marwari 13 1.2%
Chhattisgarhi 11.5 1.1%
Deccan 10.7 1.0%
Sindhi 10 1.0%
Santali 6.1 0.6%
Kashmiri 4.5 0.4%

Not Nizhni Tagil, obviously. Tamil Nadu.

“that Western intelligence services yearned for the breakup of the USSR and now yearn for the breakup of Russia?”

Western intelligence services didn’t try to destabilize the USSR? How do you know what Western intelligence services are doing or not doing, anyway? Are you privy to what MI6 is up to?

Sorry if I came off a little overconfrontational there in that last post.

I think the different coverage might have something to do with China’s role in the US economy.

It might, but how do you imagine that linkage working?

I didn’t say they have an agenda. I said they focus on Russia because Bush focusses on Russia.

OK, but the fact is that Bush doesn’t actually focus very much on Russia.

Western intelligence services didn’t try to destabilize the USSR? How do you know what Western intelligence services are doing or not doing, anyway? Are you privy to what MI6 is up to?

As in previous discussions, it’s of utmost importance to be clear about terms. “Try to destabilize” or “seek to limit or roll back the influence of” is different from “try to break up.” I am not privy to any classified info, but I make the logical assumption that the intelligence services principally pursue the goals of the executive branch that runs them (of course they have their own bureaucratic goals, but those I think lie in overestimating threats, not making threats go away). I also think that most people in such services are fundamentally conservative, in the sense that they prefer the status quo (based on which they have gamed out umpty-ump scenarios and on which they are “experts”) to some new, unknown and unstudied scenario.

If we’re talking about the 1980s and early 1990s, I don’t think there was a single leader of a major Western country who wanted the USSR to split up. Most people preferred dealing with Gorbachev – a known quantity – to dealing with Yeltsin (who was famously snubbed by Scowcroft, IIRC, during his first visit to the White House) and 14 other unknowns. As late as 1990-91, very few people in the West even thought the USSR’s breakup was a possibility, because they had overestimated the strength of the Soviet system, thought democratization could be accomplished within the boundaries of the USSR and feared that a breakup would unleash nasty nationalism (remember Bush 41’s “Chicken Kiev” speech?). Everyone was terrified of this prospect, precisely because their intel was telling them that chaos and loose nukes would result.

The breakup of the Warsaw Pact and reunification of Germany were goals pursued by the West (though hardly with much Soviet opposition in the late 1980s), and they probably inspired some of the centrifugal domestic forces in the USSR by showing them that there was potential for a lot of change. But those involved countries outside of the USSR – and one can argue that getting rid of the need to defend and subsidize them actually could have been a boon to the Soviet economy if it had continued to exist for a few more years.

Moving on to the 1990s, this is where the myth-making disturbs me even more. I don’t doubt that Western intel people were active in Russia throughout the decade (though probably less than in the 80s), mainly trying to figure out (as were most Russians) what the hell was happening. But all of the affirmative steps toward regional autonomy (which is what I assume people are referring to when they talk about “breaking up Russia) were taken by people like Dudaev and to a lesser extent by Shaimiev and other governors – do you think they were in the pay of Langley?

In the mid-to-late 1990s, when many Russians were talking about the drift of some of the subjects of the Federation away from Moscow, it obviously became the subject of conversation among academics and commentators, and there were articles arguing that the pattern of the breakup of the USSR was continuing into the breakup of Russia, and some argued that this might not be a bad thing. After all, there have always been Russophobes. But I wonder if anyone could point to the US government official who they think was behind this alleged policy to break up Russia in the 1990s (Brzezinski, often referred to in this context, was last in government when – the late 1970s?).

The idea of Russia coming apart was even more terrifying to security specialists in the West than the breakup of the USSR had seemed in the late 1980s, because Russia was visibly fragile in a way the USSR had not been. And because it came to seem like a possibility, people wrote about the crisis of center-periphery relations (a popular topic in 2000-01), and I’m sure the prospect of a breakup of Russia was gamed out – as has been written in comments at this blog by others, military planners game out all kinds of things and are required to be prepared for contingencies.

I don’t even agree that – to use your term – the West and its intel services saw “destabilizing” Russia as a goal in the 1990s. Remember that these people always focus on the highest-order threat – the nukes. How does destabilizing Russia make anyone safer?

Much of the involvement of the US and the West in 1990s Russia was flawed – Clinton’s unswerving support for Yeltsin, and the machinations leading up to the 1996 elections especially (the “birth defect” of Russian democracy, as others wiser than me have called them) – and much of the “Western assistance” either didn’t reach its target or resulted in bad advice, but try as I might, the only unifying themes I can see are misguided optimism, not enough high-level attention and incompetence from the West; often augmented by corruption and incompetence in Russia. In the area of economic reforms as well as democratization, I’ve heard it said that by the mid-90s Yeltsin and his team pretended to be conducting reforms, and the West pretended it was happening.

Maybe the reason the Chekisty always come back to the narrative about the West wanting to “break up Russia” (aside from its useful creation of a frightening external enemy) is that it’s the only way they can explain as nefarious Western support for Yeltsin (which I think after 1992 was seen in the West as support for Russia, however misguidedly) – in this narrative, Yeltsin and his team were trying to break up Russia (and, looking at the result at the end of the 1990s, one can see why they arrive at this conclusion) and were doing so with Western help. A big problem with the narrative crafted by Patrushev and others close to the Kremlin is that it relies on the false assumption that “the West” wants a weak or dismembered Russia.

Sorry if I came off a little overconfrontational there in that last post.

I thought your comments were actually pretty measured by SRB standards.

Sorry if I came off a little long-winded in this comment…

“If we’re talking about the 1980s and early 1990s, I don’t think there was a single leader of a major Western country who wanted the USSR to split up.”

****

Depends. Pipes, Safire, Brzezinski and some others were of a diffferent mind on that point.

The Vatican certainly favored Lithuania becoming independent for the same reason it sought to have Crotia and Slovenia become independent.

Canada and Poland were the first two nations to recognize Ukrainian independence for reasons having to do with a negative attitude towards Russia. The key factors being: the relatively large per capita number of people of west Ukrainian origin in Canada and how Poland tends to historically see Ukraine and Russia.

There was also the ugly bout of Russia hatred during the first wave of NATO expansion. It included the often unchallenged notion that other nations should join with Russia never being given a similar offer. At the time, Safire and Rice expressed this view. The stated reason was the pretext that Russia was/is an inherently evil place, prone to being at odds with the West.

“A big problem with the narrative crafted by Patrushev and others close to the Kremlin is that it relies on the false assumption that ‘the West’ wants a weak or dismembered Russia.”

****

Not so “false” for reasons explained in the prior post. The bigoted Nazi like legacy of Captrive Nations Week/Captive Nations Committee is another clear (though overlooked by some) reality, related to this matter.

Pardon misspell. On the Soviet side, the Soviet breakup was encouraged by those seeking to establish their own respective power base. A reason that also played into the breakup of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

No to be overlooked is a ceratin DC based attorney who will go out of his way to state purported legal claims for Chechen independence, while being mute on the arguably better independence claims of Russocentric others. He has done this without receiving much of a challenge in an envronment actively promoting him.

Me: “If we’re talking about the 1980s and early 1990s, I don’t think there was a single leader of a major Western country who wanted the USSR to split up.”

Michael Averko: Depends. Pipes, Safire, Brzezinski and some others were of a diffferent mind on that point.

Were any of those people leaders of major Western nations during the 1980s or 1990s?

Mike, you’re right to bring up the Baltics – there was more support for them breaking away from the USSR, because their integration into the USSR was never really recognized by much of the West. So I don’t think that support for the restoration of statehood to the Baltics can necessarily be read as support for the breakup of the rest of the USSR.

On the Soviet side, the Soviet breakup was encouraged by those seeking to establish their own respective power base.

True to a certain extent (though it ignores the genuine popular support for the breakup in several of the republics) – but this only underscores that people within the USSR were the ones who gained (or thought they would gain) from the breakup. Contrast this with “the West” (as a whole, or its major powers individually) which had little to gain from breaking up an entity which seemed to be moving (at least inching) toward market liberalization and democratization on its own.

Oh, and Chris, one more thing I should have mentioned – another important part of the “‘Запад’ развалил СССР и хочет развалить Россию” narrative which is false is the myth that the USSR was doing just fine in the late ’80s and would have held up if not for foreign interference (see pages 6-7 of this infamous brochure for one version of the myth). As Mike correctly points out (have I ever said this before?), the Soviet breakup was precipitated from within – and the conditions under which it took place were a depletion of foreign currency reserves, food rationing, mismanagement by Gorby and a profound sense of uncertainty, fear and insecurity on the part of the population. It collapsed under its own weight, not because of some Western conspiracy.

No to be overlooked is a ceratin DC based attorney who will go out of his way to state purported legal claims for Chechen independence…

Another thing I should have underscored which goes against the idea that the US wanted to break up Russia – throughout the 1990s, Clinton and others were supportive of Russian territorial integrity and even helpfully looked the other way at what took place in Chechnya in the name of keeping Russia whole.

Lyndon:

Pipes, Brzezinski and Safire reflect some pretty infuential views. Also recall what Rice 9as previously noted) had written at the time

As for the Yeltsin, Kravchuk and the then Belarus leaders desire to break up the USSR: it didn’t take into direct account how their respective populations felt.

Wanting to see the Soviet system end isn’t the same as the desire to have kept much (not all) of the former Soviet territory together under a new syatem of governance. Keep in mind that much of that territory had been one for a much longer period than the Soviet Union’s existence.

I don’t think that the West has been shy in criticizing Russia on Chechnya. I recall Clinton making sharp reference to Chechnya in reply to Yeltsin’s opposition to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

As for the earlier discussed coverage of China, this morning’s McLaughlin Group had a well rounded discussion on China, which had plenty of criticism of that country.

Russia is not really on the agenda in Washington.

This is true, at present the US government has bigger fish to fry and doesn’t give a stuff about the Russians in the grand scheme of things, except for giving them a hearing on their objections to the missile defence shield.

Russia is like a lot of countries that genuinely believes they can make the Yanks sit up and take note, and get increasingly angry when they realise that they are being for the large part ignored.

The bigoted Nazi like legacy of Captrive Nations Week/Captive Nations Committee is another clear (though overlooked by some) reality, related to this matter.

Overlooked by all who probably don’t think the legacy of the Captive Nations Committee is comparable to the legacy of the Nazis in any way, shape, or form.

No to be overlooked is a ceratin DC based attorney who will go out of his way to state purported legal claims for Chechen independence, while being mute on the arguably better independence claims of Russocentric others.

How odd for an attorney to present only one side of a case and remain silent on the others!! Surely he is expected to mount a sturdy defence of his client before mounting a devastating case for the prosecution!

“Tim Newman on October 15, 2007 9:46 am
‘The bigoted Nazi like legacy of Captrive Nations Week/Captive Nations Committee is another clear (though overlooked by some) reality, related to this matter.’

Overlooked by all who probably don’t think the legacy of the Captive Nations Committee is comparable to the legacy of the Nazis in any way, shape, or form.”

*****

But it is if you study the two. Among others, Georgi Arbatov noted such years ago in a New York Times feature.

———————————————-

“Tim Newman on October 15, 2007 9:48 am
No to be overlooked is a ceratin DC based attorney who will go out of his way to state purported legal claims for Chechen independence, while being mute on the arguably better independence claims of Russocentric others.

How odd for an attorney to present only one side of a case and remain silent on the others!! Surely he is expected to mount a sturdy defence of his client before mounting a devastating case for the prosecution!”

****

A related point being that those who can be categorized as not so Russia friendly have more influence on Capital Hill than those considered who can be considered more Russia friendly. I once again reference the flack Strobe Talbott received for supposedly being “soft” on Russia when he was selected for a Clinton admin. position. Talbott isn’t so soft on Russia. Zbigniew Brzezinski is comparatively much harder on Russia than Talbott is soft on it. In America, someone with views like Brzezinski can achieve a high level foreign policy position. On the other hand, a more opposite view of his is restricted.

But it is if you study the two.

Yes, I did wonder what the legacy of the Captive Nations Committee was until I stumbled across a continent left in ruins, a country divided for fifty years, and six million dead Jews.

For that matter, the so called “oil for food scandal” doesn’t negate the belief that second Iraq War was dubious and an overall mistake.

On the other hand, the mentioned CNC/CNW point underscores the predominating biases which influence some of the wrong headed perceptions of the former USSR. The stated doctrine of the CNC/CNW corresponds with the Nazi variant.

For that matter, the so called “oil for food scandal” doesn’t negate the belief that second Iraq War was dubious and an overall mistake.

That all depends on whose belief we are talking about. Personally, I think had the oil for food sanctions not been completely corrupted by the likes of the French and the Russian governments, then the war would probably not have happened.

On the other hand, the mentioned CNC/CNW point underscores the predominating biases which influence some of the wrong headed perceptions of the former USSR.

Those biases presumably including the one whereby people think that the legacy of the Captive Nations Committee is in no way, shape, or form comparable with that of the Nazis.

You mentioned on an earlier post that a media outlet had rejected one of your offerings saying “they don’t publish opinions like that”. Might I now state my complete lack of surprise?

You can think whatever you want, no matter how flawed it is. You obviously don’t know much of the CNC/CNW and its realtionship with the nazi past.

Your repeated “oil for food scandal” bit has nothing to do with the arguably faulty second iraq war.

In that prior example you mention, the editor stated that the decision wasn’t related to a decision of quality but of viewpoint. His/her paper favoring the notion that the Russian two headed eagle is “too Christian” and perhaps not worthy an emblem. No opposing view to that one was expressed.

As for the involved “quality” issue raised, there’re numerous examples to the contrary.

“Tim Newman on October 15, 2007 11:35 am For that matter, the so called “oil for food scandal” doesn’t negate the belief that second Iraq War was dubious and an overall mistake.

That all depends on whose belief we are talking about. Personally, I think had the oil for food sanctions not been completely corrupted by the likes of the French and the Russian governments, then the war would probably not have happened.”

****

?????

The second Iraq War was premised on the belief that Saddam remained very much a potential outside threat and that the overthrow of him and implementation of a new government would be relatively easy.

The latter point has proven to be very wrong, with the former one being (at the very least) quite questionable.

Second attempt to post the below:

“Tim Newman on October 15, 2007 11:35 am For that matter, the so called “oil for food scandal” doesn’t negate the belief that second Iraq War was dubious and an overall mistake.

That all depends on whose belief we are talking about. Personally, I think had the oil for food sanctions not been completely corrupted by the likes of the French and the Russian governments, then the war would probably not have happened.”

****

?????

The second Iraq War was premised on the belief that Saddam remained very much a potential outside threat and that the overthrow of him and implementation of a new government would be relatively easy.

The latter point has proven to be very wrong, with the former one being (at the very least) quite questionable.

You obviously don’t know much of the CNC/CNW and its realtionship with the nazi past.

And you obviously do not know what the word “legacy” means, or you do not know the legacy of the Nazis and/or the Captive Nations Committee, or probably all three.

You obviously don’t know what the word legacy means. Likewise with your inability to see the interrelationship between the stated views of the Nazis with the mentioned CNC/CNW.

Your repeated “oil for food scandal” bit has nothing to do with the arguably faulty second iraq war.

You were on about beliefs. For those of us who believe the Iraq War was launched as a result of the policy of containment having failed, the oil for food scandal has everything to do with it.

If your beliefs send you off down a different road to different conclusions, so be it. But I’m willing to bet that when the history of the Iraq War is written in years to come, the collapse of the sanctions against Saddam Hussein will be worthy of a chapter regardless of who is writing it.

You obviously don’t know what the word legacy means.

If all you’re going to do is copy and paste what I’ve just said, passing my words off as your own, and continually repeat yourself, I’m going to save myself and awful to of time and effort by handing over the discussion to the Averkobot:

“Language proficiency doesn’t necessarily equate into a great knowledge of the involved country’s history, politics, foreign policy, etc. If you were on my open list and read QT on a regular basis, you would know. But you prefer the ignorant route. In its bracket, TTT is a success. as a respected analyst among many of my peers. My TT articles are among the most viewed at that cite. I didn’t plagiarize anything and the followup points to my recent TT comments didn’t prove anything to the contrary. On works of genius, you show me some better commentary on the Captive Nations Committee, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, Trans-Dniester’s case for independence Andrei Vlasov and Russia’s performance in the last Winter Olympics. All this relates to the faulty manner of JRL, with Chris Doss as cheerleader for the applicably applied court appointed Russia friendlys.”

This so called “scanda”l was initially based on a report from an obscure Arab journal which quoted (among the stated violators) a Russian company that had been defunct for years. Another named Russian company was listed under its name from prior years.

All this leads one to reasonably ask how accurate was the “oil for food scandal”?

It doesn’t seem to have much to do with:

The second Iraq War was premised on the belief that Saddam remained very much a potential outside threat and that the overthrow of him and implementation of a new government would be relatively easy.

The latter point has proven to be very wrong, with the former one being (at the very least) quite questionable.

BTW, the UN has other scandals which are well based and getting comparatively hushed up. It includes the one involving Soros’ pal Martti Ahtisaari.

Pardon misspell.

“Tim Newman on October 15, 2007 12:12 pm You obviously don’t know what the word legacy means.

If all you’re going to do is copy and paste what I’ve just said, passing my words off as your own, and continually repeat yourself, I’m going to save myself and awful to of time and effort by handing over the discussion to the Averkobot:”

****

Tim Newman goes for the troll route.

Tim Newman goes for the troll route.

Indeed. Furthermore TTT is far less of a propaganda instrument than Vladimir Socor, Steady State and a number of other sources. Moreover, establishged venues like The NYT propagandize on any number of key policy issues. If you’re unable to acknowledge the above points, than youe clearness of mind is lacking on the subject matter. Once again, not all areas have the same degree of validity in their independence claims. On some topics, that’s a reality, which will be denied by the ignorant and not so truthful. Note how he didn’t offer any formal material he has on FSU matter. Meantime, I’ve never come close to making an off the wall accusation of someone else as Ethan Burger had done with me. Burger’s continued existing presence at places like RP is one of many examples showing why the Eng. lang. coverage of Russia is lacking.

This is what happens when he can’t substantiate his points on the actual merits of the discussion.

He has a quite a way of entertaining himself.

This is what happens when he can’t substantiate his points on the actual merits of the discussion.

Actually, it was you who failed to substantiate how the legacy of the Captive Nations Committee is the same as that of the Nazis. Instead you accused me of not knowing as much as you, and started repeating yourself, and taking my words and using them as your own.

Tim

dont forget the parallel biases on the isometric bars. Very serious!

Unlike some of the comments here.

Incidentally, on the very slim chance that anyone on here is interested, you can read the reports from the independent enquiry into the oil for food programme here.

One hell of a fuss over a report from an obscure Arab journal.

Sorry, here.

“All this leads one to reasonably ask how accurate was the “oil for food scandal”?”

There were several years of extensive investigations by those that cared about investigating.

Oil for food scandal resulted in removal of Benon Savan, the guy that ran it, resulted in Kofi Ana lamenting behavior of his son Kojo, resulted in criminal charges against 2 US based businessmen (all of US-based names mentioned in the original list) resulted in investigations or charges against Jean-Bernard Mérimée and Charles Pasqua…

It appears that those countries that tried to investigate these names found quite a bit. The list from Russia included entities as the Secretariat of the President (Igor Sechin anyone?) and the Russian Orthodox Church. Also named among others were Zhirinovsky and Voloshin. Is there a surprise that there was no investigation? Compare this with Russia’s score om Transparency International Corruption Index and all becomes pretty clear.

The Volker report accused almost every second company involved in paying kickbacks – about 2,000 of them.

According to Duelfer report 30% of oil vouchers were issued to Russian entities and individuals and 15% issued to the French.

So, yes, there was quite a bit to the oil for food scandal and it was a clear indication that the sanctions regime was not working which allowed Saddam to violate most of the UNSC resolutions.

MA: Wanting to see the Soviet system end isn’t the same as the desire to have kept much (not all) of the former Soviet territory together under a new syatem of governance.

Of course. And my point in the couple of long comments I made above is that if you polled Western leaders (and the heads of their “intelligence services”) in 1989 or 1990, this would have been what they would have both expected and hoped for (the overlap between expectations and hopes is also due in part to the understandable desire for predictability among leaders who have to deal with a changing world). While I think there was a support for the Balts breaking away, no one had any idea what to expect from or do with an independent Belarus or Central Asia. My whole point was that the chekist myth of the West trying then to break up the USSR and trying now to break up Russia is just that – a myth.

It occurs to me that the real “mirror” revealing a “secret desire” is the current Russian government’s projection onto America of a desire to see Russia weakened. They look into a distorted mirror and see the reflection of their (not-so-) secret desire to see America weakened. The mirror is distorted because a weak Russia is the last thing desired by an America that is concerned about nuclear proliferation and energy security.

Lyndon, do you genuinely think the “chekists” (former KGB) believe the US wanted to break up the USSR? C’mon. You’re talking about the best-informed stratum of Soviet society. They’re playing the card because they perceive it to be useful, just as US politicos who knew better claimed that the USSR wanted to conquer the world, which it didn’t.

Actually I really dislike the word “chekist.” It’s dumb, a cartoon word. And, what, is it 1925? I mean, haven’t you ever known anybody in the FSB?

I also think people are really exaggerating that Nashi pamphlet. Something like 1% of Russian young people are members of Nashi.

“The mirror is distorted because a weak Russia is the last thing desired by an America that is concerned about nuclear proliferation and energy security.”

Au contraire. America wants (inasmuch as “America” is capable of wanting anything) a Russia that is strong enough to remain stable and weak enough not to be a threat/rival.

“It occurs to me that the real “mirror” revealing a “secret desire” is the current Russian government’s projection onto America of a desire to see Russia weakened. They look into a distorted mirror and see the reflection of their (not-so-) secret desire to see America weakened.”

Very true. Just like with all the conspiracy wonks I have to deal with on a regular basis. Their mindset and their beliefs speak volumes about inner workings of their own minds much more then of anything else.

You’re talking about the best-informed stratum of Soviet society.

Even these “best informed” have abysmally poor knowledge of the rest of the world. Like that funny moment in St. Paul when Raisa Gorbachev thought she was going to catch Americans planting Potemkin villages showing her a Longs Drugs store. She made her cavalcade stop at another store in a depressed neighborhood only to see it was no different from another one she was shown. When information is cut from the masses, the tops are just as limited in what they know. I doubt that there was anyone in the USSR with decent understanding of what the West was/is about.

Au contraire. America wants (inasmuch as “America” is capable of wanting anything) a Russia that is strong enough to remain stable and weak enough not to be a threat/rival.

Hardly, Chris. The nature of capitalism is in having stable and strong trade partners. If Russia were to be one, everyone would be happy. If, however, it insists on being nasty, and unreliable as a partner, then there would definitely be a desire to weaken it. The ball is fundamentally in Russian court. The biggest problem is that Russia, being still a predominately feudal country, thinks in feudal terms, and thus is judging everything and everyone from its own retrograde perspective.

“Hardly, Chris. The nature of capitalism is in having stable and strong trade partners.”

Was World War I about having stable and strong trading partners?

“Capitalism” is not a thing that has wants and policies. The United States is not run by “capitalism.” It is run by _people_ with differing world views, ideologies and agendas.

Hey, what is that pesky embargo still doing on Cuba, you know, that one that US capitalists keep lobbying against?

I think that Mike, in his idiosyncratic way of alluding rather than stating, is pointing out that some of the “captive nations” mentioned by the committee are areas that were also promised independence by the Nazis in exchange for collaboration.

However, I also think the Captive Nations Committee is an almost irrelevant organization that no one should bother with.

Chris’ idiosyncratic claim ignore the fact that some well connected people have been involved with the CNC.

This explains the kind of dominating mindset prevalent on Captial Hill.

The CNC did get CNW officially listed as an American holiday.

Cyrill:

Like I said, the UN has other scandals which are well based and getting comparatively hushed up. It includes the one involving Soros’ pal Martti Ahtisaari.

“The CNC did get CNW officially listed as an American holiday.”

Which practically no one has ever heard of.

I blame the Masons. The Masons are behind everything.

An example of how a person of non-Russian background in Moscow isn’t so knowledgeable about a former USSR matter.

There’re some other related “idiosyncratic” points. There’s a difference between anti-Communist/pro-Russian versus anti-Communist/anti-Russian. The CNC/CNW falls in the latter category. The American intelligentsia is correctly sensitized to understand that anti-Communist/anti-Jewish is bigoted. On the other hand, anti-Communist/anti-Russian often gets rationalized in a morally repugnant manner.

The anti-Russoism can get so bad that it even got this chap (at least in one instance) to rebuke a Polish Solidarnosc advocate:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071016/84141108.html

So, what percentage of Americans do you think have heard of Captive Nations Week? I’m guessing 5% as the extreme upper limit.

He still doesn’t it.

Once again, that lot has an in with Washington officialdom in a way that the pro-Russian side hasn’t.

Plesae provide me with some evidence that the Captive Nations Committee has any significant influence on the US State Department.

Correction: He still doesn’t get it.

On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn, Lozansky and Arbatov do get it. Of like mind, all three have commented on the matter.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 16, 2007 11:57 am Plesae provide me with some evidence that the Captive Nations Committee has any significant influence on the US State Department.”

****

Not responsible for editing:

http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php

Overall, influential wonks like Kuchins and Cohen (Ariel) lean more s the CNC/CNW side than those opposing it.

Edward Lucas is peachy okay with the CNC/CNW. Paula Dobriansky’s dad was a big fish with the CNC. She regularly hangs with the most Russia unfriendly of influential Capital Hill elements.

All this relates to why someone thinking like Brzezinski can become NSA unlike someone thinking along the lines of Petro.

“Overall, influential wonks like Kuchins and Cohen (Ariel) lean more s the CNC/CNW side than those opposing it.”

Do you really think that the State Department, which has access to CIA analysts, listens to Kuchins and Cohen, or reads the Washington Post?

Come to think of it, this leads into another subject — the complete disconnect between what politicians say in public and what they actually think. For instance, Putin and Bush say a lot of shit about each other in public. Yet they are friends and apparently quite chummy. Why? Because they both know that what they say in public is purely for public, mostly domestic, consumption. Today as during the Cold War, country leaders inform each other during their closed meetings that “sorry, I’m going to have to say some blah-blah bullshit for the cameras, but don’t worry we still want to work together. By the way, here’s my two cent’s worth about Iraq/Chechnya/the Kyoto protocol/whatever.” It’s also no secret that your average European leader has more sympathy for Russia’s position on Chechnya than they are allowed to say in public, because that will get the public mad at them.

This was precisely what Condi was doing, by the way.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 16, 2007 12:10 pm ‘Overall, influential wonks like Kuchins and Cohen (Ariel) lean more s the CNC/CNW side than those opposing it.’

Do you really think that the State Department, which has access to CIA analysts, listens to Kuchins and Cohen, or reads the Washington Post?”

*****

The “paper of record” The New Yoek Times is known to reflect the views of the political establishment. Its in house Republican Safire included. The WP isn’t much different.

Moreover, the top American brass have been known to periodically go against what the more objective/academic of insiders at various government agencies suggest. Instrad, choosing to ride on public opinion and-or special interest groups.

Kudos to Fox News for having had a realtively good media watch show called Fox News Watch. it was better when Jeff Cohen of FAIR was on it. That show came on at odd hours. Not sure if it’s still on.

The political establishment is not the State Department.

They can influence policy though over the latter. Ditto the NSA.

Lyndon:

In advance of your likely reply to a recent post, yes there’re Woodward & Bernstein examples besides W & B.

There aren’t enough of them to go along with how Ashleigh Banfield was made an example of.

Before and after becoming SOS, how often has Condi gone against the grain?

Moreover, there is no monolithic “political establishment” ruling over the US, anymore than the US foreign policy is determined by “capitalism” (whatever the fuck that word is supposed to mean in this context, given that practically every country on Earth at present has an economy dominated by private property). A case in point is Congress’ complete fucking over of several years of diplomatic work with Turkey in order to appeal to a domestic lobby group, which I am sure must really piss off State. Condi must be irate.

On the media to government connection, a good number of former government officials have been employed by outlets like The NYT, CNN and ABC. This includes media people, who later on get hired by the government.

There is no “grain” to go against. That is my point. The anti-Russia blather is meant to appeal to domestic groups in the United States. The anti-US blather is meant to appeal to domestic groups in Russia. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, and both sides know it is a bunch of bullshit.

Now that I think of it, it is pretty funny how people try to pick apart Putin’s statements for meaning (the oft-cited “the Soviet collapse was a great geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” for instance). Right, politicians believe everything they say. It’s for the cameras, people. It’s scripted for the target audience. What a politicna says in public tells you nothing at all about what the person actually thinks. Talk about shadow-boxing.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 16, 2007 12:57 pm Moreover, there is no monolithic “political establishment” ruling over the US, anymore than the US foreign policy is determined by ‘capitalism’ (whatever the fuck that word is supposed to mean in this context, given that practically every country on Earth at present has an economy dominated by private property). A case in point is Congress’ complete fucking over of several years of diplomatic work with Turkey in order to appeal to a domestic lobby group, which I am sure must really piss off State. Condi must be irate.”

****

It’s monolithic in terms of what it tends to favor. Its degree varies among different topics.

There was no Armenian genocide? If anything, it finally got passed because Turkey hasn’t been doing everything to the establishment’s liking. It wasn’t enthusiastic about the second Iraq war and is threatening the Iraqi Kurds.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 16, 2007 1:03 pm There is no ‘grain’ to go against. That is my point. The anti-Russia blather is meant to appeal to domestic groups in the United States. The anti-US blather is meant to appeal to domestic groups in Russia. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, and both sides know it is a bunch of bullshit.”

****

Yes on the firsr point. Simultaneously, it does find its way in some of the policies as well.

“Yes on the firsr point. Simultaneously, it does find its way in some of the policies as well.”

This is because you have to appeal to lobby groups!

PS Lyndon this is why Russia _will_ be an issue in the US election. It will be a very minor issue, but it will be there, simply to appeal to the large and single-issue Baltic, Polish and Ukrainian diasporas.

“It wasn’t enthusiastic about the second Iraq war and is threatening the Iraqi Kurds.”

Right. And now the Turkish government will be under even more domestic pressure to threaten the Iraqi Kurds! Brilliant move, US Congress! Such farsighted wisdom is a rare thing to see.

Such special interest groups are (arguably)sometimes not reflecting the best interests of the US.

As for Turkey, it has long been treated with kid gloves. It should get a bit of a diplomatic spanking. Ideally, the spanking shouldn’t happen because Turley suddenly doesn’t march to the beat of Washington officialdom.

During the last presiential election, one of the debates spent the most foreign policy time on Russia. Kerry trying to show how Bush was soft on Russia, with the latter correcetly saying that he wasn’t.

“Ideally, the spanking shouldn’t happen because Turley suddenly doesn’t march to the beat of Washington officialdom.”

But the thing is, if Congress did what it did because of some order from Washington officialdom, it is unlikely that Bush would have warned them not to do it, specifically because it would strain relations with Ankara, which were already shit.

I am now waiting for Congress to condemn Britain over the genocide of the Boers. Oh wait, there’s no Boer lobby group in the US, so that won’t happen.

It’s not only the issue of the Armenians. The US government very much acknowledges what happened to the Jews in WW II. Hitler’s stated blueprint was what Ottomon Turkey did to the Armenians.

Note that Turkey wasn’t bombed for its quarter century brutality of the Kurds. Far worse than what the Serbs could ever be legitimately accused of in Kosovo. Turkey belongs to an American club (NATO) unlike Serbia.

On “questionable” military placements, how much opposition is stated about the situation in northern Cyprus?

Actually, Hitler’s stated blueprint was what the European immigrants did to the Native Americans. His Armenia comment was that nobody remembers the genocide.

And yes, what happened to the Boers was horrific. Of course, that doesn’t excuse the apartheid system.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 16, 2007 2:06 pm Actually, Hitler’s stated blueprint was what the European immigrants did to the Native Americans. His Armenia comment was that nobody remembers the genocide.”

****

Stated in reply to the concern presented to him about formulating such a policy. He was aware of what happened as per that comment.

Mike!

go to: http://www.tg4.ie/Webt/webt.htm

then click on ‘web tv’
then click on ‘faisneas cartlann’, on the left menu

then from the list choose:
Kosovo Misean Thar Lear – 15/10/2007.

Its a tv programme in Irish with English subtitles about Irish troops in Kosovo.

Pardon misspell. Kindly reference AH’s comment about what happened to the American Indians.

Irish!

Will check.

I understand that during the pogrom of ‘04, (when Serb shrines were savagely torched) Irish troops made a brave stand unlike the Germans stationed there.

If we want to start condemning genocides that occured almost a hundred years ago or more, we can start with the Belgians, then work our way over to the French, and then hop on over to the English. I’m sure I can think of lots more. Ah yes, the Australians. I guess they count as English in this context.

If only Australian natives had a US lobby group.

Mike,

I dunno about that, but as far as I know the irish are now the lead peacekeeping nation there – which is amazing, considering we’re such a small country. Unlike a lot of places, Ireland can genuinely claim a fair degree on nuetrality, and we all know what dirty words ‘NATO’ and the like are in Eastern Europe.

Hmmm. I can’t find the quote, but through ever-reliable google I find:

Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the ‘Red Savages’ who could not be tamed by captivity. (John Toland, “Adolf Hitler” Vol II, p 802, Doubleday & Co, 1976)

I think it’s in his Tischrede.

Although I think he was comparing the Indians to Slavs rather than Jews.

Was World War I about having stable and strong trading partners?

WWII was hardly capitalist. Most of the countries involved had state control of means of production dominant in their economies.

“Capitalism” is not a thing that has wants and policies.

Balance of private property interests in the long run determine internal and foreign policy. Not any single group or industry, mind you. I have been told on several occasions by big oil executives that for their purposes US support for Israel was counterproductive, as well as sanctions against Iraq. Big oil would love dealing with dictators – the mindset you ascribed to the US in general. Foreign and domestic policies that favour capitalist development rely on preventing monopolistic tendencies, like the anti-trust regs.

The United States is not run by “capitalism.” It is run by _people_ with differing world views, ideologies and agendas.

These views represent various interests and don’t exist just for themselves. Politicians and policy wonks might think they run the US, but if so they are delusional.

Hey, what is that pesky embargo still doing on Cuba, you know, that one that US capitalists keep lobbying against?

Because it represents a serious issue of protection of private property ownership.

Moreover, there is no monolithic “political establishment” ruling over the US, anymore than the US foreign policy is determined by “capitalism” (whatever the fuck that word is supposed to mean in this context, given that practically every country on Earth at present has an economy dominated by private property).

It’s capitalism only if you adhere to Lenin’s “Государственно-монополистический капитализм”. Lenin claimed it to be the final stage of capitalism but as with many other things, he was quite wrong. State control of means of production is the fundamental feature of feudal “метод”. He was not describing capitalism, only the early stages of transition from feudalism. And most of the countries in the world are still barely on that transitional path.

Otherwise Russia with its vertical of state controlled and run monopolies can also be called capitalist. The practice of “allotment”, i.e. letting a subject run and benefit from collected revenue from a certain piece of land or later a certain protected industry has been the corner stone of feudalism. There is little difference in Sechin feeding off Rosneft, Medvedev off Gazprom from Colbert’s textile mills.

Existence of private property does not make a country, an economy capitalist.

Ah, I see. You use a peculiar definition of capitalism that you made up.

“Because it represents a serious issue of protection of private property ownership.”

Then why does US business keep lobbying against it? I mean, you are joking, right?

“Big oil would love dealing with dictators – the mindset you ascribed to the US in general.”

By the way, I never said this, although it is obviously true that the US deals with dictators all the time. You just pissed me off.

Ah, I see. You use a peculiar definition of capitalism that you made up.

I have not change the definition. Definition of capitalism stays the same, whether a country/economy is defined as capitalist is different. You are confusing attributes with a method, data with its structure.

Unless you are suggesting there is no difference between economies that Marx and Lenin witnessed and what we see today, I can’t see any logic except ideological convenience of preserving faulty conclusions from limited observations in attaching a defunct set of attributes to what has changed dramatically in 150 years.

I can understand Marx’ and Lenin’s mistakes – they did not have the same data we do – but I can’t understand insisting on sticking to the dogma.

Then why does US business keep lobbying against it? I mean, you are joking, right?

I am not aware of an entity called “US business”. Some businessES or individuals ARE lobbying against it and some ARE lobbying for it. Conflict of business interests is the nature of capitalism. I am not sure why you need this explained.

Now that I think of it, this whole issue can be seen to be bullshit by looking at the simple fact that Russia is virtually not a trading partner, stable and reliable or not, with the US at all, unlike, say, that bastion of property rights and personal freedoms, the People’s Republic of China. Thus, it is unlikely to be a major factor.

By the way, I never said this, although it is obviously true that the US deals with dictators all the time.

Quite a number of countries are dictatorships. Of course US deals with them. Sometimes it is successful in replacing an unfriendly dictator with a friendly one, sometimes it is not.

You just pissed me off.

Good.

“Unless you are suggesting there is no difference between economies that Marx and Lenin witnessed and what we see today, I can’t see any logic except ideological convenience of preserving faulty conclusions from limited observations in attaching a defunct set of attributes to what has changed dramatically in 150 years.”

I never mentioned Marx or Lenin. I am not a Marxist-Leninist. That’s you.

“I am not aware of an entity called “US business”. Some businessES or individuals ARE lobbying against it and some ARE lobbying for it.”

You’re the one that started talking about “The nature of capitalism is… having stable and strong trade partners,” not me, thus ascribing a causal role to an entity called “capitalism.” Not me.

“I am not sure why you need this explained.”

I am not sure why you feel the need to be a patronizing, arrogant git.

“Quite a number of countries are dictatorships. Of course US deals with them. Sometimes it is successful in replacing an unfriendly dictator with a friendly one, sometimes it is not.”

Then what the hell was your point?

“Good.”

If it makes you happy to distort what people write and engage in sophistry, well what can I say. Knock yourself out, I can’t stop you.

I never mentioned Marx or Lenin. I am not a Marxist-Leninist. That’s you.

Then what definition were you juxtaposing my opinions to?

You’re the one that started talking about “The nature of capitalism is… having stable and strong trade partners,” not me, thus ascribing a causal role to an entity called “capitalism.” Not me.

Capitalism is not an entity, it’s a short hand for a system of relationships between conflicting interests of various forms of capital. When capital is not serving the state, milking it for profit, stability of the market is preferable. If Russia is a stable partner and a reasonably stable investment mechanism, everyone would benefit.

Then what the hell was your point?

I was in agreement with Lyndon that US does not want to weaken Russia, since (in addition to the point he was making) it would rather have a strong and reliable partner. Then you started shooting sarcastic one-liner questions. From these questions I gathered we were in quite a disagreement about who or what is capitalist. I tried to explain my view which apparently pissed you off.

What pissed me off what the gratuitous baiting dictator comment.

I suppose the sarcastic one-liners may have been uncalled-for. They are something of a reaction to the, um, how can I put it without being rude, impression your posts sometimes give, intended or not I cannot tell, that you think you are speaking from on high to the unwashed masses.

(See Sean! We’re making peace and breaking bread! Now isn’t that nice?)

This has no relation to anything here, but Irishman, I saw that report on John Gilligan from Irish TV. Are there any negative feelings in Ireland due to all the use of English names like John?

as during the Cold War, country leaders inform each other during their closed meetings that “sorry, I’m going to have to say some blah-blah bullshit for the cameras, but don’t worry we still want to work together. By the way, here’s my two cent’s worth about Iraq/Chechnya/the Kyoto protocol/whatever.”

I have long been convinced that this is the case with public vs private relations between most countries.

“I have long been convinced that this is the case with public vs private relations between most countries.”

Yep. This is why I completely ignore what Putin or Bush or whoever says in a press conference after a meeting with whatever head of state. What is important is what they said in private, to each other.

Lyndon, do you genuinely think the “chekists” (former KGB) believe the US wanted to break up the USSR? C’mon. You’re talking about the best-informed stratum of Soviet society. They’re playing the card because they perceive it to be useful, just as US politicos who knew better claimed that the USSR wanted to conquer the world, which it didn’t.

I’m glad you agree that it’s a myth. Here’s the thing, though. Even if the people spreading this myth from the Kremlin know it’s untrue, it’s a bit different from Condi Rice criticizing Russian “democracy” in public but not in private (and, not to be confrontational, but do you have sources among her entourage who were able to tell you the intention behind her statement? ). Rice (and other politicians in similar situations) apparently make such statements to claim the moral high ground of a popular position in a debate over something that is subjective. Misrepresenting the administration’s position for political purposes, while not ideal, is different from the Kremlin propagating a myth “for domestic consumption” (which also happens to be of a piece with many of Putin’s public statements) which is based on false facts, such as the lie about general well-being in the USSR circa 1990.

Moreover, although your confidence in the KGB’s being so well informed is cute (and is also a key part of the chekist legend), it may be misguided. Intel agencies commonly overestimate threats, as I mentioned before, and they (and the leaders who listen to them) do start to believe their own bullshit. For instance, take Iraqi WMD – I’m sure some people genuinely believed in their existence. Or do you think the KGB was on the whole better informed and more competent than its American counterparts?

As for Soviet expansionism, I do think people believed it, which is understandable because it wasn’t made-up bullshit but rather part of the USSR’s official ideology. It’s hard to sit in DC and think “workers of the world, unite” and all that rhetoric about the international dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t apply to, you know, the whole world – actually, the American leadership probably believed in this stuff more than the Soviet leadership did.

Actually I really dislike the word “chekist.” It’s dumb, a cartoon word. And, what, is it 1925? I mean, haven’t you ever known anybody in the FSB?

Do you prefer “krovavaia gebnia”? Just kidding. Chekist obviously does not equal KGB/FSB employee any more than “silovik” means anyone who works for the MVD or MinOborony (and yes, “silovik” is a term that’s often misused/abused by the Western media, though probably not as often as the term “neocon” is misused/abused by the Russian media). I also hesitate to use it (hence my referring to “the current Russian government” rather than saying “chekists” in the last para of my last comment), but if you have a problem with the term’s use in the discourse describing contemporary Russian political realities, you shouldn’t take it up with me but with all of the Russian journalists and even actual chekists who are using it. To take the best-known recent example, Cherkesov’s self-described chekist cri de coeur talks about:

…our enemies, who simply need for us, as a country, to fall off the face of the earth. And as a people – to be erased from history.

If that’s not mythmaking about an external enemy, then I don’t know what is. And such thinking is an essential part of “chekism” – which is, sadly, not a “cartoon word” but a well articulated and influential ideology.

Have I ever known anyone in the FSB? Well, other than perhaps a number of people who I didn’t know for sure to be in the FSB, I haven’t known any very well. One guy I got to know a bit was an ex-FSBshnik – he talked a lot of shit about his connections when he was loaded but seemed like a nice guy. Another guy I met once was probably in the spetssluzhby – he was working at the Russian Embassy in DC as the “Congressional Liaison” but could barely speak English and had to ask me the meaning of the word “bipartisan.” And Grishankov. I met him once – seemed like a very nice guy. Going a bit further back, there was the guy whose kid was inserted into my class in Leningrad – this guy eventually ended up asking my father to borrow some book, which ended up with our family being accused in a newspaper article of distributing anti-Soviet materials. It seems funny now, but that’s the way things were.

I guess what is stunning and upsetting to me about the frequent and casual use of “chekist” and “chekism” is that the actual past deeds of the ChK/NKVD/KGB are regarded with such indifference that one can use the term in the contemporary political discussion and not have it be greeted with an overwhelmingly negative reaction.

I also think people are really exaggerating that Nashi pamphlet. Something like 1% of Russian young people are members of Nashi.

I guess you can call me one of the exaggerators. When hate literature is distributed in the US, do people shrug and discount it by saying that it’s being distributed by “something like 1% of the population”? And the brochure contains elements of hate literature and xenophobic propaganda, make no mistake about it. The main reason it is significant, though, is that Nashi is an organization that represents the views of at least one influential portion of the ruling elite, and its materials are funded by the government or by businesses who have been “encouraged” by the government to contribute.

[n.b., this makes Nashi dissimilar to, for instance, the completely obscure and non-government-affiliated Captive Nations Committee - you suggested an upper bound of 5% of Americans having even heard of the CNC; I'd guess it's more like 1-2%.]

Even if you don’t think Surkov believes the bullshit that’s in Nashi’s materials, does that somehow make it better? The end result is the same – a generation of young Russians who hate the US at least in part because they mistakenly think it is bent on dismembering Russia. And these young people are supposed to be the most politically active, the new generation of leaders – so the propagation of an Americaphobic mindset among this group is of concern to me, since I care about the long-term US-Russian bilateral relationship and think it is important for both countries.

PS Lyndon this is why Russia _will_ be an issue in the US election. It will be a very minor issue, but it will be there, simply to appeal to the large and single-issue Baltic, Polish and Ukrainian diasporas.

Actually, it looks like McCain and Hillary are trying to stake out positions on Russia in their foreign policy platforms. I had read the earlier Foreign Affairs issues where none of the other candidates had anything at all to say about Russia. In any event, in terms of its actual impact on the race, I’d guess (barring some major increase in tensions) it will be very minor, probably to the point of being inconsequential, and my guess is that you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything on a major candidate’s website about Russia other than mild conventional-wisdom hand-wringing about Russia turning away from democracy. I don’t think it will be a point of disagreement or differentiation between candidates, although it’s true there’s a possibility that some candidates may try to make it so. I’m not sure about the payoff to such candidates, though. I think mistakes on Russia are more often used bash the incumbent or the “other guy” over the head – as opposed to Russia’s role on the campaign trail being to attract diaspora voters.

I think you’re overestimating the extent to which these diasporas are “single-issue.” The most passionate Ukrainian nationalists I’ve met in DC, for instance, are not US citizens. And once people are second-generation, I think their concerns quickly move to matters closer to home – tax policy, union endorsements, social issues, etc.

Sorry for such a long comment.

As for Soviet expansionism, I do think people believed it, which is understandable because it wasn’t made-up bullshit but rather part of the USSR’s official ideology.

In the Stalin years, Soviet expansionism was not just ideology, but actually put into effect. Witness the Molotov-Ribbentrop act which expanded the borders of the Soviet Union, the annexation of the Baltic countries post-WWII, the annexation of the Kuril Islands, the setting up of communist puppet governments across Eastern Europe, and the attempts by the Soviets to squeeze the western allies out of Berlin. Soviet expansionism became a reality thanks to Stalin being paranoid and equating territory with security.

“but do you have sources among her entourage who were able to tell you the intention behind her statement? ).”

Actually I do, sort of. The opinion I relayed is not original with me, though I agree with it. It was relayed to me by a former US diplomat. The kind of person who can call Ivanov Sergei.

More later, I have to run to work.

“I was in agreement with Lyndon that US does not want to weaken Russia, since (in addition to the point he was making) it would rather have a strong and reliable partner.”

****

Depends. Practical folks feel that way. Some others don’t. There’s also a pro-Russia business lobby which has more to do with desiring the Russian market versus sincerely liking the place (though I know that some in this grouping develop a fondness for it).

———————————————-

Lyndon:

Your Nashi-CNC analogy is off. The more appropriate one would be Nashi with the Young America’s Foundation/Youg Americans for Freedom.

The CNC is anti-Russian and has had influence on Capital Hill, much unlike any hypothetical Russocentric org. I understand that the CNC has benefitted from government grants. Aid which I understand has been more forthcoming to that and oher Galician dominated orgs., when compared to Russian ones.

As for Ukrainians on Capital Hill, the likes of Taras Kuzio get employed as in house BBC consultants. When it comes to employing in house consultants on Russia, the BBC prefers the Andrei Nekrasov view over a more mainstream Russian outlook.

As per your other comment, you’d be surprised how generations removed from a given land can continue having an interest in the old country. This includes the half-Irish/half-Ukrainian-American, who unsuccessfully tryed to convince me that Russia is to Ukraine as England is to Ireland. The more appropriate analogy would be Russia is to Ukraine as England is to Scotland. For that matter, the Russia is to Poland as England is to Ireland analogy is off. Ireland never threatened or attacked England.

———————————————-

Ger:

The hypocritically flawed bombing against Yugoslavia and ugly anti-Russian propaganda engaged during the first wave of NATO expansion has distanced many Russians from liking that org.

90% of Ukraine opposed the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Similar sentiment was found in Romania and Bulgaria.

On the other hand, Ukraine is considerably more fond of the EU.

“Witness the Molotov-Ribbentrop act which expanded the borders of the Soviet Union, the annexation of the Baltic countries post-WWII, the annexation of the Kuril Islands, the setting up of communist puppet governments across Eastern Europe, and the attempts by the Soviets to squeeze the western allies out of Berlin. Soviet expansionism became a reality thanks to Stalin being paranoid and equating territory with security.”

*****

Molotov-Ribbentrop was about the Nazis and Soviets agreeing to take territory for themselves in the Baltics, Romania and Poland. There’s reason to believe that the Soviets had little choice but to accept, since they were the militarily weaker to the Nazis.

Shortly before Molotov-Ribbentrop, the West refused the Soviet offer to defend Czechoslovak territory, which had been attacked by Nazi Germany, Poland and Hungary.

The USSR was brutally attacked in 1941. After the war it had reason to establish buffer zones. This was done, albeit in a not so humanitarian way.

“There’s reason to believe that the Soviets had little choice but to accept, since they were the militarily weaker to the Nazis.”

In fact it’s pretty clear that Stalin viewed the area as a buffer zone that would help contain the inevitable German attack. There are quotes to this effect, IIRC in Service’s last Stalin bio.

I will get back to Lyndon with a response when I get the free time to write! Pesky work deadline.

Stalin’s paranoia doesn’t negate that the USSR had enemies and potential enemies to be concerned about. They included those who were anti-Communist/anti-Russian.

The Soviet war with Finland was about stratgery (to use a Saturday Night Live Bushism).

Stalin offered the Finns a land exchange which Mannerheim refused.

Stalin’s made this offer based on a hypothetical future war with Nazi Germany, where Finland would be allied with Berlin.

The above stated isn’t meant as an endorsement of him. His purging of the Red Army officer corps, oppressive acts and strategic miltary mistakes are another aspect.

True enough Mike, Russians in particular hate NATO – often, when I meet strangers and they ask me where I’m from, they’ll ask me ”is Irlandiya in NATO”? They dont know much about Ireland usually.

Speaking of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, seemingly the Kursk submarine and crew were heroes among their navy colleagues after their mission in the Adriatic in 1999. The Kursk sat under the US aircraft carriers gathering info. The Americans were convinced there was a Russian sub underneath but try as they might they couldnt find the Kursk!)

Ger:

NATO was outfoxed in a couple of instances.

The Serbs made tanks out of paper mache for NATO to bomb.

From their cell phones, Serbs near the air craft carriers would call Serbia when the planes would take off.

Ger, I was watching subtitled Irish TV last night. Some program for teenagers called Aific.

If I were in junior high school, I would totally have the hots for Aific. By 14-year-old standards, she’s a babe.

Mike, I did not make a “Nashi-CNC analogy” – what I said was that the organizations are dissimilar.

I’m going to quote myself – sorry, everyone, but the comment this is originally from is long:

Mike, as I’ve said before when discussing CNC with you, I agree that the organization’s (or, more likely, its advocates’) involvement in 1990’s debates about NATO membership for East European countries was not productive. However, I disagree that its existence is somehow highly relevant for US-Russian relations. Take the 5% most anti-American fringe of Russian Duma Deputies (often written off as irrelevant or clownish) – aren’t they more “bigoted” in their anti-Americanism, not to mention frequently appearing on TV and having at least some residual political power? Some of them also happen to be nationally known figures in Russia. The CNC, on the other hand, is not a major force, and your ongoing reference to Captive Nations Week (adopted in 1959, wasn’t it?) as an “official American holiday” is a bit dated and misleading – where is this “holiday” actually celebrated? Does anyone care about it anymore? I don’t think so.

“Take the 5% most anti-American fringe of Russian Duma Deputies (often written off as irrelevant or clownish) – aren’t they more “bigoted” in their anti-Americanism, not to mention frequently appearing on TV and having at least some residual political power?”

Lots of American public figures and politicians will say lots of vile things about Arabs and/or Muslims, however. Some of them will say them about Russians too, but it is much less prominent.

“The CNC, on the other hand, is not a major force, and your ongoing reference to Captive Nations Week (adopted in 1959, wasn’t it?) as an “official American holiday” is a bit dated and misleading – where is this “holiday” actually celebrated? Does anyone care about it anymore? I don’t think so.”

Every year my family puts up a Captive Nations Week tree, decorated with little stars and baubles representing each of the Captive Nations. The one for Cossackia goes on the top.

“[n.b., this makes Nashi dissimilar to, for instance, the completely obscure and non-government-affiliated Captive Nations Committee - you suggested an upper bound of 5% of Americans having even heard of the CNC; I’d guess it’s more like 1-2%.]”

***

The CNC has received government funding and has ties with the likes of Dobriansky and Chumachenko.

They’re small and should be non-factors given their relatively small numbers and crack pot views. However, they did get CNW passed as an official American holiday.

Not so long ago, John Shimkus of Illinois and some other congressmen sought a resolution pressing Russia to denounce Molotov-Ribbentrop. Something which has essentially already been done.

How come Shimkus and co. don’t press Latvia and Estonia on their discriminatory policies?

“Every year my family puts up a Captive Nations Week tree, decorated with little stars and baubles representing each of the Captive Nations. The one for Cossackia goes on the top.”

****

Freedom for Gaugazia, Republika Srpska, among others.

BTW, Krasnov was far more of a reactionary than what Vlasov could be legitimately accused of. There’s enough credible primary source material showing how many Cossacks preferred Vlasov over Krasnov. In any event, most Cossacks support the idea of the Cossacks residing in a Russian state.

“In any event, most Cossacks support the idea of the Cossacks residing in a Russian state.”

Well, they do nowadays.

It’s not like they have much of a choice, since nowhere in Russia are Cossacks a majority of the population, not even in Rostov or Kuban.

They always did.

Pugachev wanted to replace Catherine, as opposed to being separate from Russia.

Oh lord, not this conversation again. Cossack history is not reducible to the Pugachev uprising. It’s several hundred years old, with lots of different epochs and currents and different movements within it.

They certainly didn’t always want it, or they wouldn’t have fled from Russia in the first place. In fact the address of the Don Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan during the Seige of Azov is very clear that Russia has no dominion over them. Oh, here’s the quote: “We’re not worth a stinking cur to Muskovy. We ran away from Muskovy — from endless work, from absolute oppression, from the boyars and the nobles — and settled in these impassible deserts where we live gazing up at God.” (Ivan the Fool: Russian Folk Belief, Andrei Ainyavsky, pp. 224-225)

I love how this quote ends: “We’ll take your silver and your gold from you overseas. And we’ll also kidnap whichever of your beautiful wives we want.”

This is also pretty clear from Tolstoy’s The Cossacks, where he writes:

To the south, beyond the Terek, are the Great Chechnya river, the Kochkalov range, the Black Mountains, yet another range, and at last the snowy mountains, which can just be seen but have never yet been scaled. In this fertile wooded strip, rich in vegetation, has dwelt as far back as memory runs the fine warlike and prosperous Russian tribe belonging to the sect of Old Believers, and called the Grebensk Cossacks.

Long long ago their Old Believer ancestors fled from Russia and settled beyond the Terek among the Chechens on the Greben, the first range of wooded mountains of Chechnya. Living among the Chechens the Cossacks intermarried with them and adopted the manners and customs of the hill tribes, though they still retained the Russian language in all its purity, as well as their Old Faith. A tradition, still fresh among them, declares that Tsar Ivan the Terrible came to the Terek, sent for their Elders, and gave them the land on this side of the river, exhorting them to remain friendly to Russia and promising not to enforce his rule upon them nor oblige them to change their faith. Even now the Cossack families claim relationship with the Chechens, and the love of freedom, of leisure, of plunder and of war, still form their chief characteristics. Only the harmful side of Russian influence shows itself—by interference at elections, by confiscation of church bells, and by the troops who are quartered in the country or march through it. A Cossack is inclined to hate less the dzhigit hillsman who maybe has killed his brother, than the soldier quartered on him to defend his village, but who has defiled his hut with tobacco-smoke. He respects his enemy the hillsman and despises the soldier, who is in his eyes an alien and an oppressor. In reality, from a Cossack’s point of view a Russian peasant is a foreign, savage, despicable creature, of whom he sees a sample in the hawkers who come to the country and in the Ukrainian immigrants whom the Cossack contemptuously calls ‘woolbeaters’. For him, to be smartly dressed means to be dressed like a Circassian. The best weapons are obtained from the hillsmen and the best horses are bought, or stolen, from them. A dashing young Cossack likes to show off his knowledge of Tartar, and when carousing talks Tartar even to his fellow Cossack. In spite of all these things this small Christian clan stranded in a tiny comer of the earth, surrounded by half-savage Mohammedan tribes and by soldiers, considers itself highly advanced, acknowledges none but Cossacks as human beings, and despises everybody else.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tolstoy/leo/t65co/chapter4.html

I suspect you are confusing the institution of Cossackdom (a mutually beneficial arrangment between the Russian State and mostly Cossack border populations that lasted from about the War of 1812 to 1917, with Ataman Platov not by coincidence being the last Don ataman to be elected rather than appointed by the Tsar) with the Cossacks (a group of somewhat-related peoples whose history goes back at least to the 1500s).

It is a common confusion.

There’s reason to believe that the Soviets had little choice but to accept, since they were the militarily weaker to the Nazis.

I am more swayed by the explanation offered by R.C. Raack in his book “Stalin’s Drive to the West, 1938-1945″:

If we trace Stalin’s hopes in the Czech crisis of 1938 back from the existing record of his secret Trotskyite programmatic leitmotif of war and revolution that took definite form just a year or so later during the Polish crisis of 1939, we can infer that in 1938, just as in 1939, Stalin very much wanted a general war with the West, though without his participation, with the British, French, and Germans bogged down in a reciprocally debilitating conflict over Czechoslovakia. It was just such a war that his quick agreement with Hitler, manufactured in not entirely dissimilar circumstances in the sumer of 1939, was clearly designed to encourage.

In fact it’s pretty clear that Stalin viewed the area as a buffer zone that would help contain the inevitable German attack. There are quotes to this effect, IIRC in Service’s last Stalin bio.

This is far from pretty clear, bordering on being totally false.

The idea that Stalin had been left out in the cold by the West and had no choice but to ally himself with Hitler in order to buy himself some time does not stand up to scrutiny amongst contemporary historians. It ought to be evidence enough to anyone claiming that Stalin knew a German attack on the USSR to be inevitable that operation Barbarossa came as a total surprise to the man, with him refusing to believe reports of the German attack for several hours after it started.

Stalin’s paranoia doesn’t negate that the USSR had enemies and potential enemies to be concerned about.

Which enemies, exactly?

“The idea that Stalin had been left out in the cold by the West and had no choice but to ally himself with Hitler in order to buy himself some time does not stand up to scrutiny amongst contemporary historians. It ought to be evidence enough to anyone claiming that Stalin knew a German attack on the USSR to be inevitable that operation Barbarossa came as a total surprise to the man, with him refusing to believe reports of the German attack for several hours after it started.”

Take it up with Robert Service, not me. My understanding is that Stalin did not believe Germany would fight a two-front war. However, he did believe that after Britain fell, Germany would turn east. Obviously, he was wrong about Germany not being willing to fight a two-front war, and thus was shocked by Operation Barbarossa, expecting the attack (which anybody who had read Mein Kampf and took it seriously knew was on the agenda) to occur later, after the fall of Britain.

“Which enemies, exactly?”

Trotsky? Hitler?

Hey thanks Sean! Interesting stuff.

Upon skimming it I noticed something I’ve seen before and am srill bemused by — anytime you say anything positive, or not totally negative, about Stalin in any way, you have to defend yourself against attacks that you are an apologist for Stalin and think he was awesome. It’s weird. I mean, the Wehrmacht was pretty clearly a fantastic military force, and pointing this out doesn’t get people pegged as apologists for Hitler.

I long for the day that we can discuss the history of the 20th century with the relative lack of passion and lack of ideology with which we discuss Charlesmagne and the Punic Wars.

Not the case. Debate continues. You might want to read up on the waves Geoffrey Roberts’ heavily documented Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War 1939-1953 is making.

Yes, volume of controversy generated is an excellent basis on which to recommend history books.

Trotsky? Hitler?

And these enemies were best countered with an expansionist agenda?!!

Upon skimming it I noticed something I’ve seen before and am srill bemused by — anytime you say anything positive, or not totally negative, about Stalin in any way, you have to defend yourself against attacks that you are an apologist for Stalin and think he was awesome.

I’d be interested to see where you think that has happened here, although I would point out that if you maintain that Stalin’s pact with Germany was an act of self-defence as opposed to one of premeditated expansionism, then chances are you will be accused with some justification of being an apologist for Stalin’s actions in this regard, if not the man himself.

I’d be interested to see where you think that has happened here,

My apologies Chris, I see you were referring to the discussions at the link Sean posted, not the discussions here. Please ignore the above.

It’s clear that Geoffrey Roberts is being accused of such just because he has the balls to recognize that Stalin might not have been the paranoiac madman we all know and love, but actually very, very human.

But has this ever been in doubt amongst serious historians? I don’t see Roberts as breaking new ground here. Paranoia and ruthlessness are very human traits, and I don’t think a historian who claimed otherwise would be taken very seriously.

If people what to disagree with Roberts’ premises and findings that is fine, but to insinuate that he is an “apologist” is stupid and rhetorically undermines the important documentary evidence and interpretation he provides.

I agree that calling somebody an apologist off the cuff is pretty damned stupid, and although I haven’t read Roberts’ work I am reasonably confident he is not an apologist for Stalin. But Roberts ought to realise that the claim that Stalin signed the pact with Hitler as an act of self-defence having been left vulnerable to Nazi attack by the failure of the west to guarantee the security of the USSR has been the standard trope of genuine Stalin apologists ever since the event. With the ground having been prepared so carefully over the years by genuine Stalin apologists, he mst be prepared to tread very carefully when he walks the same or similar ground.

“Oh lord, not this conversation again. Cossack history is not reducible to the Pugachev uprising. It’s several hundred years old, with lots of different epochs and currents and different movements within it”

****

Freed serfs, who overall have had a Russocentric outlook.

———————————————-

On Stalin and the background to Molotov-Ribbentrop the reality is clear (or at least should be):

- The West rejected his offer to jointly oppose the Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czechoslovkia in 1938.

- Stalin had to know that his armed forces were weaker than Nazi Germany.

- He was also aware that before WW II, there were people in the West like Harry Truman wishing for a Nazi-Soviet confrontation where the two would knock each other out.

- This is probably why the West didn’t oppose the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. It was hoped that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR. There’s another likely reason. Although a democracy, the Russia/Soviet friendly stance of the Czechs no doubt made them expendable to some in the West.

On the topic of Stalin, the History Channel ran a pretty informative feature on Moscow’s construction during his rule:

http://www.history.com/minisites/lostworlds

The rebroadcast of that show just started.

This is probably why the West didn’t oppose the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. It was hoped that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR.

Far from this being a ‘clear reality’, is there any documentary evidence whatsoever which shows that this is the primary reason why the west did not join forces with the USSR?

“Freed serfs, who overall have had a Russocentric outlook.”

They were not FREED serfs. They were ESCAPED serfs, criminals, and persecuted religious minorities. They ran away from their masters.

And thus became free. Later, the Cossacks had the formal status of autonomy in exchange for serving Russian interests.

———————————————-

“Tim Newman on October 18, 2007 6:44 am ‘This is probably why the West didn’t oppose the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. It was hoped that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR.’

Far from this being a ‘clear reality’, is there any documentary evidence whatsoever which shows that this is the primary reason why the west did not join forces with the USSR?”

****

A misinterpretation. The clear reality pertained to the previous point:

“The West rejected his offer to jointly oppose the Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938.”

As for the above quoted point at the very top, provide a counter-reasoning making more sense. Note that the “probably” was put in to mean not definitelely.

“They” running “away from their masters” doesn’t mean that they sought being separate from Russia.

Conversely, Shevchenko not liking the Imperial Russian government didn’t mean that he favored a Ukraine separate from Russia. In Shevchenko’s instance, he had pan-Slavic sympathies, which supported the idea of a union including Russia and Ukraine, with the exclusion of the existing government structure of the Russian Empire.

Pardon misspell in the post prior to the last one.

“And thus became free.”

A slave who has run away from massah, hidden in the forest from the authorities for months, and travelled hundreds of kilometers to get away from massah, has not been freed. He has escaped, and is unlikely to be massahcentric.

A misinterpretation. The clear reality pertained to the previous point:

Which is wrong. Stalin did not approach Britain and France in order to oppose the German annexation of Sudetenland, he approached them in order to propose a defence pact whereby Britain and France would come to the defence of the USSR if they were attacked by Germany.

As for the above quoted point at the very top, provide a counter-reasoning making more sense.

Sure. Britain and France did not have the means to defend the Soviet Union, and given the USSR was far from an ally of either country, they did not feel obliged to come to the USSR’s defence as Britain had done with its client, Poland.

This is probably why the West didn’t oppose the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. It was hoped that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR.

Actually, this is bollocks on so many levels. Britain did oppose the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland, voiceferously if only diplomatically. And far from thinking that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR, they thought it would be against Poland, hence Britain committed itself to Poland’s defence should Germany invade. And whatcha know? They did.

““They” running “away from their masters” doesn’t mean that they sought being separate from Russia.”

Except that they did. They FLED Russia, meaning they LEFT Russia. Then the Empire’s expanding borders caught up with them, they waged on-and-off guerrilla war with the Empire for a hundred years or so, and eventually the two factions came to a truce that evolved into the mutually beneficial relationship known as Cossackdom.

“Which is wrong. Stalin did not approach Britain and France in order to oppose the German annexation of Sudetenland, he approached them in order to propose a defence pact whereby Britain and France would come to the defence of the USSR if they were attacked by Germany”

*****

This included confronting the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

Britian had elements verbally opposing what Hilter did in 1938. Britain didn’t come to Czechoslovakia’s aid, while refusing the mentioned Soviet offer. The “peace in our time” quote (Chamberlin I believe) possibly relates to Truman’s brazen yearning to see the Nazis hit the USSR next (Truman wasn’t alone). Around the time of the Munich appeasement, many believed the next Nazi move was likely against the USSR. At that point, Soviet-Nazi relations weren’t so good.

“And far from thinking that the next Nazi move would be against the USSR, they thought it would be against Poland, hence Britain committed itself to Poland’s defence should Germany invade. And whatcha know? They did.”

****

Ah yes, the “phony war” (as some refer to it), when Britian didn’t do squat.

When did Britian actually start to militarily engage itself during WW II?

As for allies, who was the Brit who said that Britain has interests as opposed to allies? A quite honest approach.

Re: Chrisius Maximus on October 18, 2007

This coterie of criminals and legitimately wronged people had a beef with the state. Was OJ seeking to become a state when he drove off in his Ford Explorer?

As you point out, the eventually established “Cossackdom” was largely akin to Russia.

This included confronting the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

According to which source? There isn’t any evidence of this.

Britian had elements verbally opposing what Hilter did in 1938.

Yes, elements known as “the government”.

Britain didn’t come to Czechoslovakia’s aid, while refusing the mentioned Soviet offer.

Britain protested through diplomatic channels, which the USSR did not. And the Soviet offer was nothing to do with Czechoslovakia, but about getting Britain and France to pledge to come to the defence of the USSR.

Around the time of the Munich appeasement, many believed the next Nazi move was likely against the USSR.

Maybe. But the British government believed – correctly – that the next Nazi move would be against Poland, not the USSR.

Fair enough. I’ll look for the material on that Soviet offer.

”As for allies, who was the Brit who said that Britain has interests as opposed to allies? A quite honest approach.”

I dunno about that. I cant see what material interest Britain had in declaring war on Geramany after the Nazis invaded Poland. Seems to me they took a principled stand against German aggression at that point, with little to gain really.

“Well I can’t speak for Herr Maximus”

I am a proud, upstanding Roman citizen, not a barbarian German tribesmen. Please do not refer to me as “Herr.”

“nor am I suggesting that you are doing this Tim, but Chris brings up an important point about when one talks about Stalin. Calling someone an apologist for Stalin is a common rhetorical move in Russian historical studies in general.”

This kind of thing isn’t just in Russia studies. Remember how way back when Raul Hilberg was rhetorically assaulted for daring to assert that Hitler killed, not 6 million Jews, but a mere 5.1 million? I seem to recollect a lot of this sort of thing took place during the debate (which may be ongoing for all I know) over whether Hitler ever gave an actual direct order to implement the Final Solution or not.

“Chrisius Maximus on October 18, 2007 10:21 am ‘And thus became free.’

A slave who has run away from massah, hidden in the forest from the authorities for months, and travelled hundreds of kilometers to get away from massah, has not been freed. He has escaped, and is unlikely to be massahcentric.”

****

Massahcentric shouldn’t be confused with Russocentric.

Ah yes, the “phony war” (as some refer to it), when Britian didn’t do squat.

What has this got to do with what we are discussing?

You wouldn’t perchance be trying to change the subject here, would you?

“IRISHMAN on October 18, 2007 10:48 am ‘As for allies, who was the Brit who said that Britain has interests as opposed to allies? A quite honest approach.’

I dunno about that. I cant see what material interest Britain had in declaring war on Geramany after the Nazis invaded Poland. Seems to me they took a principled stand against German aggression at that point, with little to gain really.”

****

Quite different from how it acted with Czechoslovakia. Did this have anything to do with Czechoslovakia being on the Russia/Soviet friendly side unlike Poland?

Keep in mind that Poland (along with Hungary)participated in the Nazi led dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

“This coterie of criminals and legitimately wronged people had a beef with the state. Was OJ seeking to become a state when he drove off in his Ford Explorer?”

OJ was not heading to join an armed encampment of tens of thousands of people that exists outside the United States and specifically declares itself free of Washington’s rule.

Anyway, people on the run from the law, especially in the SIXTEENTH CENTURY, don’t think in those terms. They wanted to get out of Russia and band with other refugees for mutual support free of outside influence, which they did. We would call that wanting a state today.

“Tim Newman on October 18, 2007 10:51 am Ah yes, the “phony war” (as some refer to it), when Britian didn’t do squat.

What has this got to do with what we are discussing?

You wouldn’t perchance be trying to change the subject here, would you?”

****

Not at all. Are you? You were the one who made the point about Britian coming to Poland’s aid.

The whole comment on that particular was:

“Ah yes, the phony war’ (as some refer to it), when Britian didn’t do squat.

When did Britian actually start to militarily engage itself during WW II?”

“Chrisius Maximus on October 18, 2007 10:56 am ‘This coterie of criminals and legitimately wronged people had a beef with the state. Was OJ seeking to become a state when he drove off in his Ford Explorer?’

OJ was not heading to join an armed encampment of tens of thousands of people that exists outside the United States and specifically declares itself free of Washington’s rule.

Anyway, people on the run from the law, especially in the SIXTEENTH CENTURY, don’t think in those terms. They wanted to get out of Russia and band with other refugees for mutual support free of outside influence, which they did. We would call that wanting a state today.”

****

Yes, the modern day concept of a nation/state differs from what was evident in that period. In any event, when a “Coossackdom” was formally established, it was mostly Russocentric in its national allegiance.

“In any event, when a “Coossackdom” was formally established, it was mostly Russocentric in its national allegiance.”

Sure. That was later.

“Maybe. But the British government believed – correctly – that the next Nazi move would be against Poland, not the USSR.”

Isn’t that kind of obvious, given that the quickest way to get to the USSR is to go through Poland?

The Soviet-Czech border in addition to:

- Polish friendly Hungary joining Nazi Germany and Poland in the dismemberment of Russian/Soviet friendly Czechoslovakia in 1938

- Soviet unfriendly Finland in the north

- pro-Nazi Romania bordering the USSR.

“Sure. That was later.”

***

As I’ve been accused of living too much in the past.

“As I’ve been accused of living too much in the past.”

You previously wrote:

“They always did.” ALWAYS. At all times.

As formally established Cossackdom.

As per Munich 1938, note that the Soviets didn’t attend because they weren’t invited. Based on the involved variables, the Soviets had valid reason to be suspicious.

Regarding an earlier discussion at this thread, page 701 of Gordon Craig’s “Europe Since 1815″ (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, NY, 1965) cites Chamberlin turning down a March 17, 1938 Soviet offer to form a collective European alliance against future aggression. The Soviet proposed alliance sought the participation of Britain, France, the US and USSR. Craig said that the Soviet offer was motivated by the German-Austrian Anchluss. The Soviet offer was made just before the Muhich appeasement.

Craig wrote this book while teaching at Stanford. On the referred to Soviet offer, I’ve seen the same presentation made elswhere.

Not at all. Are you? You were the one who made the point about Britian coming to Poland’s aid.

Yes, I did – in a certain context, which was under discussion. You then took Britain coming to Poland’s aid completely out of this context and took it into one quite unrelated to the first, i.e. changing the subject.

Not at all.

In any event, I took the time to address your questioning of a certain point.

Quite different from how it acted with Czechoslovakia. Did this have anything to do with Czechoslovakia being on the Russia/Soviet friendly side unlike Poland?

Probably not, unless you have evidence the contrary. Britain tried diplomatic pressure after the annexation of the Sudetenland, which didn’t work, so they applied force (in the form of a declaration of war) after the subsequent invasion of Poland. As far as the chain of events goes, it’s simple enough without having to resort to unfounded not-so-Russia-friendly conspiracy theories: appeasement didn’t work, diplomatic pressure didn’t work, force was the last resort.

Craig wrote this book while teaching at Stanford. On the referred to Soviet offer, I’ve seen the same presentation made elswhere.

This is unsurprising, given that what you have quoted is the generally accepted course of events as described by most credible historians, and one engineering manager on this forum whose name is rather like mine. Nobody is disputing that:

The Soviet proposed alliance sought the participation of Britain, France, the US and USSR. Craig said that the Soviet offer was motivated by the German-Austrian Anchluss. The Soviet offer was made just before the Muhich appeasement.

Nor that Chamberlain turned the offer down. What I am disputing is your assertion that the USSR looked to oppose the German annexation of the Sudetenland as part of this desire for an alliance.

This isn’t directly relevant, but didn’t a significant Germanonphile minority in Britain (not just the Mosely people) approve of Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland?

Oh, I’m also disputing your assertion that Chamberlain turned the Soviet offer down because they were hoping Germany would invade the USSR next.

This isn’t directly relevant, but didn’t a significant Germanonphile minority in Britain (not just the Mosely people) approve of Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland?

There were more than a handful in almost every country, Britain included, who approved of many of Hitler’s actions. Most disgraceful were the actions of the Irish government of the time (e.g. offering official condolences on the death of Hitler, but not on that of Roosevelt), although it should be noted that a good few Irish came to fight alongside the British against the Nazis.

Ah, thanks Tim.

I did not know that about Ireland’s condolences, though I did have a vague understanding that they linked German successes with their own attempt to move away from Britain.

“Tim Newman on October 18, 2007 1:02 pm Oh, I’m also disputing your assertion that Chamberlain turned the Soviet offer down because they were hoping Germany would invade the USSR next.”

****

I presented it as a reasonable thought.

- Chamberlin turned down the mentioned Soviet offer.

- the Soviets weren’t invited to Munich

- in the West, there was a noticeable anti-Nazi/anti-Soviet mood as stated by Truman.

“I presented it as a reasonable thought.”

But then, since for Germant to invade the USSR it would first have to invade Poland, why did Britain declare war on Germany when it did just that?

As previously noted, Germany had other options.

The Soviet-Czech border in addition to:

- Polish friendly Hungary joining Nazi Germany and Poland in the dismemberment of Russian/Soviet friendly Czechoslovakia in 1938

- Soviet unfriendly Finland in the north

- pro-Nazi Romania bordering the USSR.

Once again, note the earlier “phony war” reference. Britian declared war on Germany after the latter attacked Poland. However, when did Britian actually engage in confronting the Nazis?

I’m now reminded of a Pole who made this point (in the form of a question) to me years ago.

Where is this Soviet-Czech border?: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/wwii.htm

Looking at that map, what do you think would be the best way to transport huge numbers of tanks, troops and materiel from Germany to the Soviet border?

I did not know that about Ireland’s condolences, though I did have a vague understanding that they linked German successes with their own attempt to move away from Britain.

Sounds sort of like all of those “nazi like” captive nations! The enemy of my enemy is my friend…

“Sounds sort of like all of those ‘nazi like’ captive nations! The enemy of my enemy is my friend…”

****

Only the “Nazi like” in a previously mentioned example is if anything mild.

Antonescu/Iron Guard (Romania), Arrow Cross (Hungary) the UPA (primarily in Galicia) and Ustasha folks (Croatia) included. Those are the kind of folks who involved themselves with the CNC.

———————————————-

“Chrisius Maximus on October 18, 2007 1:31 pm ‘I presented it as a reasonable thought.’

But then, since for Germant to invade the USSR it would first have to invade Poland, why did Britain declare war on Germany when it did just that?”

*****

At the time of the Munich appeasement, this is how the Soviets and some non-Soviet Western academics saw the situation:

- In 1934 Poland and Nazi Germany signed their own version of a non-aggression pact.

- Four years later, Poland, Hungary and Nazi Germany dismember Russian/Soviet friendly Czechoslovakia. At the time of the Munich appeasement, Poland, Hungary and Nazi Germany were all on relatively good terms with each other and not the USSR.

- Just before the Munich appeasement, Chamberlin turned down a Soviet proposal that would’ve defended Czechoslovakia.

- The USSR wasn’t invited to Munich.

- In the West, there was the hoped view that the Soviets would be the next target.

- At the time of the Munich appeasement, there’s ample reason to believe that a Nazi-Soviet war involving others was more likely to happen before a Nazi-Western one.

Based on all of the above and again putting into focus the situation at the time during the Munich appeasement (before Molotov-Ribbentrop), the USSR had reason to fear a possible future attack against it, inclusive of Polish involvement. Diplomatically, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a practical Soviet counter-move.

“the USSR had reason to fear a possible future attack against it,”

Well, duh. Everybody who read Mein Kampf knew what was coming. But that does not mean the British were covertly hoping for it.

Duh, a series of occurrences suggests the possibility that the West’s actions at Munich relate to the hope that Hitler would next move East, where the Soviets and Nazis would be bogged down with each other, with the West left alone.

Just before the Munich appeasement, Chamberlin turned down a Soviet proposal that would’ve defended Czechoslovakia.

No no no no no! For the umpteenth time, the Soviet offer was not about opposing the German annexation of the Sudetenland!!

Yes, it was for the umteenth time. I’ve an academic to support that view. He’s not the only one.

Page 701 of Gordon Craig’s “Europe Since 1815″ (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, NY, 1965) cites Chamberlin turning down a March 17, 1938 Soviet offer to form a collective European alliance against future aggression. The Soviet proposed alliance sought the participation of Britain, France, the US and USSR. Craig said that the Soviet offer was motivated by the German-Austrian Anchluss. The Soviet offer was made just before the Muhich appeasement.

Craig wrote this book while teaching at Stanford. On the referred to Soviet offer, I’ve seen the same presentation made elswhere.

At the time of the Munich appeasement, this is how the Soviets and some non-Soviet Western academics saw the situation:

A more accurate overview of Soviet thinking would be:

-Shit. Hitler is looking pretty strong, and we have decimated our own military. Fuckity-fuck. Let’s see if the Brits and French will come to our aid if Germany attacks.

-Shit, they wonn’t. We need a plan B. Hey, Germany! How about we divide Poland up between us? Yeah, that should keep them off our backs and we get half of Poland to boot!

Yes, it was for the umteenth time. I’ve an academic to support that view.

No, you don’t. The Soviet offer was about defending the USSR, not Czechoslovakia. Craig does not say that Czechoslovakia was to be a beneficiary of the Soviet offer, and I doubt any other historian does either.

“Half of Poland” which was overwhelmingly western Belarus and western Ukraine.

Note that the Brits didn’t declare war on the USSR.

“No, you don’t. The Soviet offer was about defending the USSR, not Czechoslovakia. Craig does not say that Czechoslovakia was to be a beneficiary of the Soviet offer, and I doubt any other historian does either.”

****

Oh yes he did as have others.

Page 701 of Gordon Craig’s “Europe Since 1815″ (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, NY, 1965) cites Chamberlin turning down a March 17, 1938 Soviet offer to form a collective European alliance against future aggression. The Soviet proposed alliance sought the participation of Britain, France, the US and USSR. Craig said that the Soviet offer was motivated by the German-Austrian Anchluss. The Soviet offer was made just before the Munich appeasement.

Craig wrote this book while teaching at Stanford. On the referred to Soviet offer, I’ve seen the same presentation made elsewhere.

Oh yes he did as have others.

Can you back this up by quoting a passage where Craig actually mentions Czechoslovakia, or are you going to keep copying and pasting the same one over and over which makes no mention of it whatsoever?

“Suggests the possibility.”

“-Shit, they wonn’t. We need a plan B. Hey, Germany! How about we divide Poland up between us? Yeah, that should keep them off our backs and we get half of Poland to boot!”

Hey, which party, the Germans or the Soviets, approached the other with the idea for the Pact?

Poor, poor Gordon Craig.

Not as poor as Chris Doss.

Craig makes clear his view that the mentioned Soviet proposal was in oppostion to the Anshcluss and that it was presented prior to the Munich appeasement.

As previously mentioned, the Sovets agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a diplomatic counter-move to what transpired at Munich. In his book, Craig believes this to be true as well.

Poor, poor, poor Gordon Craig. He’s been made into Mike’s ho.

Sean:

Great contribution eh?

Later with the bullshit.

As previously mentioned, the Sovets agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a diplomatic counter-move to what transpired at Munich. In his book, Craig believes this to be true as well.

I haven’t read Craig’s book, but I am reasonably certain that he does not think anything of the sort. More likely, he sees the Molotov-Ribbentrop act as a diplomatic counter move to the refusal of Britain and France to defend the USSR in the event of a German attack, coupled with a golden opportunity to expand the borders of the USSR.

As I said, I haven’t read Craig’s book, and I suspect nor has Mike. In fact, I doubt it is in his possession. Given that Mike fails to understand what Craig has actually written suggests he is reading the referenced section for the first time, and in isolation from the surrounding material. My reckoning is that he’s emailed one of his anonymous sources for some backup, who has sent him a copy-n-paste passage in an effort to support what he’s saying. This would explain why Mike is incapable of quoting anything other than this same passage over and over, along with not understanding any of the context in which it is written.

“As I said, I haven’t read Craig’s book, and I suspect nor has Mike. In fact, I doubt it is in his possession. Given that Mike fails to understand what Craig has actually written suggests he is reading the referenced section for the first time, and in isolation from the surrounding material.”

Exactly. Regardless of the quality of his work, poor Gordon Craig has been made into Mike’s ho, to do his bidding and service Mike.

Now that is sad.

Through the miracle of Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V, Mike can make historians do his bidding repeatedly (albeit repetitively). Technology is amazing.

By the way, since the subject of hos has come up, I wanted to take issue with the title of this post. “Mirror, mirror, upon the wall” may be the official Snow White version, but Sean, I thought you were more up-to-date and not down with those patriarchal, racist fairy-tales. I know it’s too late to change the title (URL and all that), but I think the title should be “Mirror, mirror, on the wall.” Not only does it seem to be the more common usage (600,000 Google hits vs. about 10,000 for “upon”), it is also the version preferred by Slick Rick and Snoop.

“Who is the top dogg of them all?”

Tim fails to comprehend what Craig clearly said in his book, with Chris trolling and Lyndon offering nothing of substance.

Meantime, there’s no miscomprehension on my part on what Craig states in his book. Views which aren’t exclusive to himself.

Au contraire. Old-school hip-hop lyrics are very much of substance and clearly on-topic for this post. To state otherwise is hypocritically flawed. I wonder if I can figure out how to cut and paste text…

*ponders*

*hums to self* “Like Mike, if I could be like Mike…”

Eureka! I’ve figured out how to press the Ctrl key simultaneously with other keys and now I can paste text! This means I can join the discussion on the level of Mr. Averko!

“La-di-da-di, we likes to party
We don’t cause trouble, we don’t bother nobody
We’re, just some men that’s on the mic
And when we rock upon the mic we rock the mic RIGHT
For all of y’all, keepin’ y’all in health
Just to see you smile and enjoy yourself
Cause it’s cool when you cause a cozy conditioning
Which we create, cause that’s our mission
So listen close, to what we say
Because this type of $hit happens everyday
I woke up around ten o’clock in the morning
I gave myself a stretch up, a morning yawn and
Went to the bathroom to wash up
Put some soap on my face and my hand upon a cup, said
“Mirror, mirror, on the wall
Who is the top choice of them all?”
there was a rumble tumble, five minutes it lasted
the mirror said, “You are, you conceited bastard!”
Well that’s true, that’s why we never had no beef
Then I washed off the soap and brushed the gold teeth…”

Mr. Allin gets silly again in an obvious attempt to provide cover for his shortcomings.

*yawn*

No, Mike, I’m not getting “silly,” I’m getting stupid, but not in the context you might immediately think of.

“…I get stupid, I mean outrageous,
Stay away from me if you’re contagious,
‘Cause I’m a winner, no not a loser,
To be an MC is what I choose…”

Why don’t you paste that bit from Prof. Craig’s book in for the fourth time, or paste in that paragraph about the Tiraspol Times that you cut-and-pasted at least eight times in the comments sections of various blogs – one more time, just for old-time’s sake?

Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V – Mike, seriously, you have opened my eyes to a whole new debating technique: endless, verbatim repetition. I will always be grateful to you for showing me the light.

“Sometimes I dream
That he is me
You’ve got to see that’s how I dream to be
I dream I move, I dream I groove
Like Mike
If I could Be Like Mike…”

I’ll keep practicing my cutting and pasting skills, and maybe someday I can realize my dream and – in spite of my shortcomings – live up to your high standards.

Okay, you’re not getting silly. Stupid is a better description.

Edit for prior post:

Okay, you aren’t getting silly. Stupid is a better description.

Sean:

Hope you learned something new on what the Soviets offered as an alternative to Munich.

Hope you learned something new on what the Soviets offered as an alternative to Munich.

Heh heh! Sean patronised on his own blog.

“Again I try
Just need to fly
For just one day if I could
Be that way
I dream I move
I dream I groove
Like Mike
If I could Be Like Mike
I wanna be, I wanna be
Like Mike”

Chris,

Aifric is a fine bird, no doubt about it. But there are better birds than her at TG4. I’ll get the link and show you!

Okay Lyndon.

———————————————-

“Tim Newman on October 19, 2007 5:22 am Hope you learned something new on what the Soviets offered as an alternative to Munich.

Heh heh! Sean patronised on his own blog.”

****

Me patronize?

“La-di-da-di, we likes to party
We don’t cause trouble, we don’t bother nobody
We’re, just some men that’s on the mic
And when we rock upon the mic we rock the mic RIGHT”

Ahem. These lyrics were plaigarized from Eng.lang.mASS.

“Sometimes I dream
That he is me
You’ve got to see that’s how I dream to be
I dream I move, I dream I groove
Like Mike
If I could Be Like Mike…”

Ahem, give credit where credit is due. These lyrics were written by Eng.lang.mASS.