My three trips to Russia – twice in Soviet times, once in the post-Communist era – were fascinating (more about them here), but always contained weird overtones of paranoia. Communist and post-Communist Russia both struck me as one of the most brutal places I ever visited. It’s not the kind of country in which anyone would volunteer to live. The Russians aren’t stupid, far from it, but their vision of life is skewed by a projection of their continual struggle to exist.
For that reason, I think, they frequently make decisions that are absurdly self-destructive, like hitching their wagon to the likes of Hugo Chavez. In the Byzantine Russian mind, they are convinced that we are out to get them and they must fight us. Life for them is such a struggle they can’t let go of that simplistic conception, even when allying with us would be so much better for them economically (we sometimes have trouble too, but mostly in reaction to them). It’s quite bizarre really, and sad, sad like Russian music and Russian literature.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
33 Comments
1. srlucado:I remember from my visit to the USSR that the Soviets seemed more paranoid about China than the US, especially the further one got from Moscow. But I was just a student then, even more ignorant than I am now (only less aware of it).
As far as Russia aligning itself with Venezuela (and vice-versa)…I get the impression of two sinking ships lashing themselves together, hoping that way they’ll both stay afloat. Which, of course, they won’t.
And I don’t find Russian music and literature at all bizarre and sad, but complex and intense. Whatever you can say of War and Peace, or Turgenev’s Hunter’s Sketches, or Rachmaninoff’s Third Piano Concerto, or even Prokofiev’s score for Alexander Nevsky, they’re hardly bizarre and sad.
Scott
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:22 pm 2. Promoguy:“And I don’t find Russian music and literature at all bizarre and sad, but complex and intense. Whatever you can say of War and Peace, or Turgenev’s Hunter’s Sketches, or Rachmaninoff’s Third Piano Concerto, or even Prokofiev’s score for Alexander Nevsky, they’re hardly bizarre and sad.”
But you can’t dance to it.
Dec 3, 2008 - 5:31 pm 3. ricpic:It’s like the people who go to live in Vermont because it seemed romantic to them on a ski vacation. After a couple of Vermont winters they either skeedaddle out of there or they become as hardbitten as the natives and begin congratulating themselves on having morphed into mean meager cantankerous bastids.
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:14 pm 4. Alan Kellogg:And the self-perpetuating pessimism keeps adding misery to despair. Infrastructure degrades, services rot, and lives become ever more desperate. Right now Russia is only losing 100,000 people a year at last report. But so long as Moscow and her apparatchicks continue acting as they do, the improvements that lead to that demographic advance will be reversed, and the loss of people will be back in the millions before you know it. As with Zimbabwe and North Korea, the only thing keeping Russia alive is her military. Without the army to give the country the patina of stability Russia would be awash in civil war, social disorder, and foreign invasion.
We made the same mistake after the Cold War as the Entente made after World War I; we didn’t finish the job. We were tired, we thought we’d done enough. No one was willing to face the need to follow our victory by securing the peace. Nobody was willing to take the next step by occupying the old Soviet Union and rebuilding the place from the ground up. As we rejected the evils of empire we conveniently forgot that sometimes empire is necessary.
Change is coming. Russia will survive, but as much smaller state. New countries will be born, other stretches of soon to be former Russian territory will be annexed by her neighbors. Circumstances are likely to lead to the United States purchasing large parts of eastern Russia, if for no other reason than to keep China from getting them and their resources. China’s not a competitor, even a potential enemy? Please, I walk lopsided as it is.
Keep your eyes open, when you hear of brigade sized units mutinying is when you’ll now Russia has just died.
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:52 pm 5. Dr. T:Is Russia today the definitive rebuttal to Marx’s economic determinism?
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:56 pm 6. blogengeezer:Russians, like Palestinians and other perennial losers, would rather dream of the imagined “respect” they felt when they wielded the power of the Soviet Union, than become part of the West. Even many third-world countries have recognized that’s the only star that any wagon can be hitched to that’s not likely to end in the mud.
Funny thing about Russia: they’d rather be a slave on their knees than a free man standing tall.
The invasion to teach Georgia a lesson; Toilets..toilets were the Booty of the Russian military. Carefully removed with their complete plumbing. That says it all.
For just one reference, Dr Zhivago tells the story. Anyone wants to know what it would be like to ‘Change’ our system, needs to read and understand ‘Dr Zhivago’. One other way to see the real Russia (not just Moscow) is to be a Missionary in these last days before this temporary opening is completely closed by the totalarian government.
Basic Medical instruments which we take for granted, are ‘Lifetime Treasures’ to be passed down through generations. Poverty and utter hopelesness is the rule not the rare, Common is Dispair.
The elderly are commonly passed over in medical care in favor of the young. Medicine is not trusted in purity due to many factors.
Alcoholism affects most every family, Prison is a way of life for some members of nearly every family. Totally Abusive family members are accepted to the point of often causing death. Get away from the largest tourist visible cities and learn how electricity is rationed daily, Water pressure is allocated to areas.. Trust of others is never allowed due to the reward system for ‘turning in’ a lawbreaker, breeding rampant Paranoia.. See the actual square footage Dictated by ‘the government’ for each person in a family. Fall in the street and no rescue squad or EMT’s will ever show up. People will walk around you, so as not to ‘get involved’. Only if you are fortunate enough to have a caring family will someone come to search for you.
Russian art is finely detailed because it is their life. Moving to another trade is nearly impossible. ..’The St. Petersberg Collection’.. is but one example. Read about ‘Russian Hill’ in San Francisco. Read about the ‘White Russian’ exodus even to Appalachia in the USA, as the Bolsheviks Red Russians pursued them, killing them on the run across Siberia. Read the TRUE (as opposed to what you were taught) stories of The last Czar and his Christian family (Romanov’s) as they tried so hard to Westernise and modernise Russia. Russian history is so rich, yet so deprived of so many things we westerners view as Entitlements. I much prefer the USA, ‘One Nation Under God’
Dec 3, 2008 - 8:28 pm 7. Anita Hope:We all interpet art an music with different eyes and ears, very strong, sometimes heavy, yet with a deep beauty of emotions & sadness, all part of
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:31 am 8. daveinboca:Russian History then an still today. Today, we do not hear the music only see the sadness, what a shame.
I can remember reading in the early ’80s from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. that the Soviet system was alive and prospering because he took a walk through neighborhoods near Red Square and found all the shops filled with things to buy. ]ASjr. never figured out whether the average worker in his workers’ paradise had enuf rubles to purchase any of the gaudy baubles in the showcase stores.] Read the books of Simon Sebag Montefiori, especially his book on Potemkin and the 18th c., to get a sense of Russia as it was and perhaps ever shall be.
Putin had Stalin’s personal library conveyed to his office in the Kremlin and eagerly shows visitors the underlined paras and handwritten notations of Russia’s answer to Adolf H. [who killed far more foreigners than Stalin, who specialized in killing his own defenseless citizenry]. Lil Vlad The Empoisoner considers Monsieur Djugashvili his personal exemplar, which should tell you much about the Russia of the 21st century.
BTW, Mr. Medvedev sent a comment to a blog I wrote during his “election” campaign over a year ago. His Uruk-Hai orcs are very attuned to the blogosphere, though the “comment” was pure boilerplate.
Dec 4, 2008 - 7:40 am 9. TexasDude:What is sickening is that there are many in America who want to go down that road.
Dec 4, 2008 - 8:04 am 10. Scott:Davienboca…glad you mentioned SB Montfiori…am reading his “Young Stalin”.An outstanding book,as was “In The Court of the Red Tsar”
Dec 4, 2008 - 8:08 am 11. Scott:The tragedy of Russia is that it early on developed a slave mentality..the yoke of the Mongols became the yoke of the Tsars,and then the worst yoke of all,that of Bolshevism.A country of such potential becomes a place where the average man’s life expectancy is 58 years(basically because of alcoholism),and where 2/3ds of births are terminated…
Dec 4, 2008 - 8:20 am 12. Markus:It shouldn’t be that hard to understand Russian suspicion of the West after what happened in the 1990’s. In response to unilaterally disbanding the Soviet Empire without a last-ditch fight, the Russian were counseled by the West to cast their lot with the ideology of free-market “shock therapy,” embrace robber barons like Khordovsky and Berezovsky, and support an embarrasing, alcoholic, West-loving buffoon of a President. They did all of this, and the result was the terrible declines in Russian demographic, economic and public health indicators, coupled with an aggressive effort by America and the border countries to take advantage of and lock in Russian weakness. Now they have a teetotalling President that has given the country almost ten years of economic growth, a small reversal in its birth rate, and a foreign policy that has made Russia an object of fear again, rather than the butt of jokes.
A sane America-first US policy would encourage the neighboring countries to follow the lead of the Finns, who know better than perhaps any people how to productively deal with the Russians while maintaining their sovereignty and intergrity. Briefly, their policy involves the maxims “trust but verify,” “pick your battles,” “let bygones be bygones.” And perhaps most importantly,”draw a line in the sand, but don’t whack the hornets nest.”
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:06 am 13. Markus:I agree though with Roger’s comments on the tragic and sad nature of the Russian soul. I saw this amazing movie by an avante-garde filmmaker I believe named Chantal Ackerman about ten years ago. She does these really, really stretched out “reality” type movies, where the camera follows a character around doing ordinary life activities for, like, hours. Sort of a real-time view. There was this shot of Russian people in communist era Leningrad waiting for a bus at twilight, in the dead of winter. I just keep thinking: damn, that’s bleak. I could see under those circumstances how vodka would warm things up a bit.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:18 am 14. A. N. Pierson:“It shouldn’t be that hard to understand Russian suspicion of the West after what happened in the 1990’s.”
What dopey statement. Russian suspicion of the West is endemic – centuries old. The 1990s were actually a low point. This is the kind of chauvinistic silliness that generates our own brand of paranoia. The Russians are responsible for their own lives and we for ours. We cannot change Russia. They are only able to change themselves. This Markus fellow should review Psychotherapy 101.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:44 am 15. Jack Okie:Markus, you do remember that Al Gore was the designated point man for the Clinton administration to the Russians in the ’90s, don’t you? At any rate, they weren’t following our blueprint, or they wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in now. The Tartar Yoke, centuries of semi-feudalism continuing into the 20th century, the carnage of two world wars, the huge percent of GDP devoted to the Soviet military…. These are not going to be reversed in a few years.
As for Finland: Have you heard of the Russo-Finnish war. Their “line in the sand” didn’t do them much good, since the line of the border shifted. Here are the main terms of the peace treaty Finland was forced to sign (from The Causes, Events, and Repercussions of the Russo-Finnish War, by Stephen Payne,http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9764/warfin1.html):
“The entire Karelian isthmus with the city of Viipuri, the whole of Viipuri Bay with its islands, as well as the territory west and north of Lake Ladoga with the cities of Keksholm and Sorrtavala, were ceded to Soviet Russia. In the region of Kandalaksha the border was also moved farther west, and parts of the Rybachi and Sredni peninsulas and a number of the islands in the Gulf of Finland were handed over to the Soviet Union.
In addition to those demands, the treaty also established the 30 year lease on the Hanko peninsula, for which the Finns were compensated eight million Finnish marks. As stated in the earlier demands, the Russians had the right to establish a naval base and garrison troops, along with any armed forces deemed necessary. Finland was also banned from maintaining any armed naval vessel larger than one hundred tons, and from maintaining a total naval presence of more than 400 tons off the Arctic coast. The Russians were also granted the right to build a railway connecting the Soviet Union, Sweden, and Norway through Finland. The Soviets would then have the right to transport goods through Finland by rail free of tariffs, inspections, and fees.”
And as for “maintaining their sovereignty”, the Soviets tolerated Finnish domestic autonomy, but the Finns had no independent foreign policy until the fall of the Soviet Union. And Markus, you sound like Russia being feared again is a good thing.
Sorry for the long post, but Markus’ airy-fairy version of history was just too feckless to ignore.
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:06 am 16. Markus:Okie,
Yeah, I know a thing or two about the “Russo-Finnish War” given that my grandfather and two of my uncles fought in it. For the Finns.
Thanks to Field Marshall Mannerheim, the Mannerheim line, and his amazing troops, Finland, despite being outnumbered four to one in troops, and 200 to 1 in tanks, managed to lose about 10% of its territory. There were six Soviet casualties for every Finnish casualty.
The mistake the Finns made was to try to get back this lost territory by joining the Germans as co-belligerants (not allies) in Operation Barbarossa. That led to the much longer Continuation War, which led to the additional loss of Petsamo in the northeast, and its ice-free Arctic port.
Neutrality and self-reliance has its rewards. Losing 10% of one’s territory is a whole lot better than how the Baltic States and the eastern European states made out, especially Poland, whose 1939 alliance with England led to…the slaughter of millions of its citizens, and fifty years of Nazi or Communist occupation. And postwar “Finlandization” meant full sovereignty in domestic policy and trade policy, which I would argue are the ONLY types of sovereignty that really matter. What sovereignty would the United States have if we let Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and allowed them to dictate when the other NATO countries must declare war on Russia?
Dec 4, 2008 - 12:23 pm 17. daveinboca:What sovereignty would the United States have if we let Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and allowed them to dictate when the other NATO countries must declare war on Russia?
That would happen only if Russia invaded the two countries in question, not if the member-states attacked Russia, which is highly unlikely. Russia has always been expansionist and hyper-aggressive, instigating fear and suspicion in its neighbors, even in the relatively peaceful Tsarist epoch. Just ask the Poles and the Baltic states, like Estonia which just unearthed a Russian mole deep in its intelligence apparatus, as The Economist reported last month. Old habits die hard and Finlandization is hardly a model for vigorous democracy and independence.
Somebody’s either operating under a false flag or drinking some baaaaaad Kool-Aid!
Dec 4, 2008 - 1:57 pm 18. Mike_K:““The entire Karelian isthmus with the city of Viipuri, the whole of Viipuri Bay with its islands, as well as the territory west and north of Lake Ladoga with the cities of Keksholm and Sorrtavala, were ceded to Soviet Russia. In the region of Kandalaksha the border was also moved farther west, and parts of the Rybachi and Sredni peninsulas and a number of the islands in the Gulf of Finland were handed over to the Soviet Union.”
Have you read George Kennan’s description of that area in 1947? The city and surrounding area was abandoned. The Russians simply took it and left it fallow for decades. The decline of the Russian state will not stop. They will be gone in a century.
Dec 4, 2008 - 1:59 pm 19. Jack Okie:Markus, my comments were not to imply that the Finns had any other options since they were cheek-by-jowl with the Soviets. And whatever they did, the Germans were probably coming in anyway. My problem with your analysis is not so much historical accuracy as cause and effect. How could the absence of an alliance with England have prevented Hitler from invading Poland? Did England’s successful defense of Czechoslovakia provoke him? Oh, wait…
As for Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the rest of the NATO members, I would wager the Russians would have a lot more influence on whether we declared war or not. You seem to have a problem with the West standing up to bullies. Shall we throw Ukraine and Georgia to the Russian bear? What if they want Poland back? Where does it stop? Were we wrong to wrest Austria back after WWII? I guess to you, the Russian invasion of Georgia is “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing”. It didn’t work for Chamberlain; maybe it will work today.
Dec 4, 2008 - 2:20 pm 20. Markus:“That would happen only if Russia invaded the two countries in question, not if the member-states attacked Russia, which is highly unlikely.”
Yes, but of course, but the question of who first pushed and invaded whom is usually never cut and dry. Who invaded first last summer, Georgia or Russia? For months, the New York Times pretty strongly followed the
McCain-Scheunemann line. Then it came out with this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?em
Mike K, George Kennan was a great American, I strongly doubt he would support any neocon foolishness in the Caucuses, where there are no vital American interests.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jun/06/00007/
Dec 4, 2008 - 2:31 pm 21. Jack Okie:Markus, would you consider preventing Russia from energy blackmail of Europe a vital American interest? I would. Here are two references of what’s at stake:
A report for Congress in 2007
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22562.pdf
Wikipedia article re South Caucasus Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline
Money quote: “In longer perspective South Caucasus Pipeline will supply Europe with Caspian natural gas through the planned Nabucco, Turkey-Greece and Greece-Italy pipelines.”
If oil and gas can be shipped to Europe without involving Russia, they lose not only their transhipment fees; they lose their ability to squeeze Europe over energy. Their support of South Ossetia has little to do with their sympathy with break-away regions (ask the Chechens about that) and everything to do with projecting power and influence.
Are those blinders or rose-colored glasses you’re wearing?
Dec 4, 2008 - 3:11 pm 22. Markus:Jack Okie,
I think that the U.S. is in a rather precarious position on many levels, and we have many more urgent tasks right now than saving other countries from bullies. Plus don’t you see at all how the Russians would consider us to be the bulies? The line about “how would the US feel if Russia or China sought military alliance with Mexico, or Cuba, or Mexico” is NOT entirely specious.
Regarding the British war guarantee to Poland, its highly likely you are correct in saying the Germans were probably coming anyway. But given the inevitable carnage that happened, I think it behooved England to continue to try to avert a Nazi-Soviet alliance and a new World War. If I was Chamberlin, I would have done what, by the way, George Keenan himself endorsed years later as the best possible course: appease Hitler one last time in early 1939 on the final LEGITIMATE German territorial demand, that of the Free City of Danzig, while continuing to rearm British forces in preparation for a war sooner or later likely to be inevitable. Hitler’s first offering to Poland on the Danzig question was actually quite reasonable, asking only for the city itself and a highway through the Danzig corridor. Would acceding to this have preserved peace, preserved Polish soveignity and saved its Jewry, probably not for long. But NOT pursuing this course, and instead encouraging Poland to take a hardline against Germany, GUARANTEED all of these calamities, while doing NOTHING at all to weaken Germany, strengthen Poland, or protect its citizens from annhilation.
Chamberlain, of course, had no political will for another round of appeasement because after Munich Hitler humiliated him by marching into Prague, and disgusted him and all civilized peoples with Kristallnacht. Plus he had Churchill and Roosovelt breathing down his neck. It probably would have been best to deal with the Danzig question AT Munich. Like I said, probably wouldn’t have worked, but it wouldn’t have cost one single additional life to try.
Dec 4, 2008 - 3:36 pm 23. Markus:Jack,
didn’t see your last comment when I posted my previous comment. Not exactly sure what Russia would blackmail Europe about, but if it is so damn important, let the Europeans take care of it themselves. Oil is a fungible commodity, a barrel of oil costs the same everywhere, and the only two American caveats about where we get it from should be 1) all things being equal, the less we import the better, and 2) send as little as possible to countries that include many citizens with aggressive intent toward America and the West. In my book, that is limited to the jihadi-sponsoring countries.
Dec 4, 2008 - 3:44 pm 24. Jack Okie:Markus,
Yeah, I’ve felt the same way about Europe taking care of its own defense for a while now. Of course, it’s really not monolithic, which makes it easier for Russia to try to divide and conquer (stick with what works, right?). Russia would take at least part of its buffer states back if they could get away with it. I think their calculus is somewhat defensive and pre-emptive, in that the weaker and further way their neighbors, the less potential for trouble down the road.
As far as Hitler’s intent, it is hard to know what he intended all along vs the opportunistic moves. There was a History / Discovery channel program just the other day claiming Hitler did not originally intend to invade the USSR. I do think there was a very large element of payback in most everything he set in motion.
Good discussion. I’m trying to study, so I’m checking out till tomorrow. Be well.
Dec 4, 2008 - 5:38 pm 25. R. Balsamo:Mr. Simon’s comments are quite interesting, and quite coincidental, as just two days ago the WSJ carried a review of a new book about Russia, which I wrote about at my blog Critical Thoughts. Entitled “Russia — The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same,” here’s some of what I wrote:
Today’s Wall Street Journal (here) carries an instructive review of a new book by Jonathan Brent about his experiences in digging up and publishing Soviet state documents since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991…. Of particularly interest to me are the author’s reflections on the Russian people. [The book reviewer] Tartakovsky writes of Bard and his experiences:
Mr. Brent intersperses his archival quest with reflections on modern Russia. His argument … is that the Soviet mentality is reasserting itself aggressively in Russia today…. [I]n Brent’s view, Russia feels the same: drab,careworn, suffocating. He describes the unrelieved crumminess of all Russian manufactures that are not weapons or space stations. Empty restaurants run out of menus, their strange meats unpierceable by the average fork…. But perhaps a touch of existential despair may be excused when, for locals, it is tradition itself. No country that staggers within a century from Third Rome to Third International to Third World looks confidently to its future. When Mr. Brent asks a woman what she thinks about the years ahead, she answers: “I don’t.”
Whatever the nature of their politics or the name of their state, the Russian people seem never to change. Ira Gershwin’s insight and humor come to mind: “I’ve found more clouds of gray, than any Russian play – can guarantee” (from But Not For Me). Winston Churchill too had Russia’s number: “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”
R. Balsamo
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:57 pm 26. Alan Kellogg:http://criticalthoughtsblog.blogspot.com/
Markus, #20
Georgia was intervening in Russian occupied Georgian territory. Take your finessing and moral equivalency and use it for a suppository.
You don’t want to face the possibility of conflict, and you hate having to admit that some people need killing. You’re not being fair, you’re being a waffling ass.
Late author and magazine editor John Wood Campbell Jr. once said that there is rarely two sides to a story. More often there are as many sides as there are participants. Sometimes there is only one side to a story. You refuse to decide between the parties, and inflict your ethical indeterminancy crap on people.
Russia invaded Georgia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia occurred years ago, the most recent round of fighting was triggered by Georgian attempts to regain Georgian territory under Russian occupation. Your denials and lies don’t change a thing. You’re a fool, and an enabler for a fraud. That is my honest opinion of you, based on what you’ve written. In case you’re wondering, I am a bastard and I’m proud of it.
Dec 4, 2008 - 7:43 pm 27. Roger L Simon:Mr. Balsamo, thank you for your comments. And for reminding me of Ira Gershwin’s brilliant lyric. “I’ve found more clouds of gray, than any Russian play – can guarantee” Who ever said it better? But then the Gershwins were really Russians too, weren’t they?
Dec 4, 2008 - 7:54 pm 28. Markus:Alan, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both less than 20% Georgian, probably a lot less than that after the events of the summer. There is no realistic way to force them back into Georgian hands. The parallels with Kosovo are fairly similar. You can argue the territories were ethnically cleansed of Georgians in the early nineties, but then the Abkhazians will bring up what happened in the twenties…
Moral ambiguity, not moral equivalency. Another word would be realism.
Dec 4, 2008 - 9:18 pm 29. Gary Rosen:“As far as Hitler’s intent, it is hard to know what he intended all along”
As usual, a complete crock of lying dishonest bullshit from “markus” – Hitler made his intentions clear when he wrote Mein Kampf, meanwhile “markus” keeps pimping the Buchananite line that Poland started WWII and making excuses for anyone with murder in their heart for the Jews. I’ll just keep repeating it – it’s like blaming Megan’s Law on Megan.
Dec 5, 2008 - 1:24 am 30. nilsonian:I was involved in a conflict management project involving Abkahzia and Georgia in the mid-90s. Legally, the Georgians have a terrific legal case for sovereignty over the territory–19th century, it was all theirs, etc.
Dec 5, 2008 - 6:23 am 31. Jack Okie:Morally, not so good. The Abkahzians had real grievances, and they were conspicuous in the Soviet Army and Air Force; every Ab’ian I met had a father, brother or was a veteran themselves. They moved into Georgia in Soviet times to take Soviet jobs–they didn’t invade the place. The newly independent Georgia treated them with an insane amount of disrespect. The Russians don’t have too many small nations that actually like them, this is such a case, hence the ‘protective’ support of their cause.
Mr Rosen:
The “hard to know what Hitler intended all along” is my comment, not Markus’, and refers to the specific moves Hitler made before and during the war, i.e., he didn’t want war with England vs he prepared to invade England; he planned open warfare by 1945 vs moved up the timetable when Britain and France appeared weak; and so forth. I don’t believe Hitler intended all along to be fighting in North Africa early in the war, but like in Greece, felt it important to bail out Mussolini. On the other hand, the assertion that Hitler did not originally intend to invade the Soviet Union (made in the TV program I referenced my earlier comment) is hard to credit.
Dec 5, 2008 - 10:27 am 32. Alan Kellogg:markus, #28
So what? The world recognizes both areas as Georgian territory. Only Russia differs in that department. There are places in the U.S. that have a minority white population, that mean they can’t be American territory? Ethnicity and nationality are not necessarily synonymous.
South Ossetians started their mad adventure under Russian tutelage. The Russian aim to gain a foothold in Georgia that would get them past the southern Caucasus. What the Georgians did early in the affair does nothing to excuse Ossetian and Russia behavior.
Or is it the ‘injustice’ of Georgian actions that bothers you? Could it be the long going Georgian/Russian conflict inconveniences you? Might it be you’re upset at all the attention we’re giving to this, which is diverting us from the far more vital problem of Obama’s Constitutional disqualification for the office of president. Or, for that matter, the West’s refusal to accept Vlad Putin as our lord, savior, and prime supplier of petroleum goods.
Are you upset that we keep shining an impertinent light on Russian perfidy?
You poor moral relativist. How dare we insist on standards of conduct and behavior? How dare we call upon people to behave decently and with courtesy and consideration for others? Who gave us the right to insist on respect for those who honestly merit it? Who are we to demand verifiable facts and testable evidence, when such distresses poor bloviating dweebs like you?
Think I’m being cruel now? Markus, I have not yet begun to flame.
Dec 6, 2008 - 3:10 am 33. buddy larsen:“…years from now historians may well regard the Bolshevik Revolution, the Second World War, the Cold War and the War on Terror as episodes within a single struggle between civilization and a series of pathological political formations. The real corruption and moral failing of the West may be found in the West’s recurring appeasement of totalitarian countries. Future historians, seeing the advance of American forces in 1943 and the advance of American forces in 2003 will wonder what went wrong in the latter instance. Each advance took place at the expense of totalitarian regimes that, by nature, butchered or oppressed millions of people. And yet, mobilizing against this butchery and oppression has come to be decried as butchery and oppression in its own right. The constant propaganda message spread throughout the world today is that America is to blame.”
(further on)
“The real wickedness of the West is here inscribed. It is the wickedness of the deserter who abandons his duty, betrays his ancestors and cuts off his own posterity. It is the wickedness of the man who rationalizes a policy of appeasement. Nearly everyone talks as if there were no WMDs in Iraq and the invasion went ahead on a false basis. President Bush is therefore discredited as a liar. The United States is converted into the likeness of its enemy. The totalitarian powers are said to be no worse than the United States. Whatever crimes they’ve committed are attributed to the CIA. Such claims as these are repeated in American classrooms, put in the ears of American children every day. They are published in books, newspapers and magazines. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said, the crimes of the Soviet past are comparable to the crimes of America; the wrongdoing of Stalin may be compared to the wrongdoing of Harry Truman. And many Americans are ready to concede his point. Here is the argument of the fellow traveler.”
( from JR Nyquist’s Global Analysis –the essay from July 2nd of last year: Moral Equivalence )
Dec 6, 2008 - 7:56 pm