Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 14th, 2017, 12:26 PM   #31
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
That's just the sour-grapes-conspiracy-theory. No one in the west ever got much money out of Russia.

What DID happen is that well-placed RUSSIANS — people who knew how the Soviet system had worked and where the value was, AND has the right contacts and Protection — robbed Russia blind.

Putin pruned back some of the most excessive oligarchs early in his reign, but never replaced them, just made them clearly subservient to the the political power in the Kremlin (himself), meaning wealth in Russia matters not unless one also as political protection. (Since the laws only operate when there is political will to apply them, which typically is when political protection is in place).

THEN these people spirited as much loot as they could manage outside of Russia, to all kinds of tax-havens. Of which there are not a few in the west (Russian bilionares' penchant especially for London — including sending their children out of Russia for education, and another kind of future, one not Russian). But that's it.

No, the westerners did nothing to stop any it. But then, stopping the Russians from doing what they do in Russia isn't something the west can actually do.

All the amazing development aid to africa and the marshal plan which was considered absolutely vital, and when soviet union collapses the only ones to move in were the sharks.

No amount of power-fantasies of how the westerners are AT THE SAME TIME incredibly useless at all things, while at the same time damn near all-powerful, that is generated in Russia, and environs, changes this.

Russian WAS given billions in aid for a decade. Most of that was simply stolen — in Russia, by Russians.

And "creating businesses from the ground up"... Well, nothing is preventing Russians from doing this themselves. Not then, not now. EXCEPT the problem of Russian laws — beginning with how property and business laws do not protect the people that would be creating these businesses "from the ground up". The ask then becomes that the westerners should provide for the Russians — stump up the money, take all the financial risks, make life better for the Russians, and in the Russian state in the en will rob them for their efforts. It's why in a decade, 2005-2015, the proportion of government ownership of the Russian economy changed from 1/3 to 2/3. It's a massive state-owership nationalization program going on. It is actively willed by the Kremlin, and it's killing Russian private enterprise and this kind of "from the ground up" businesses.

The problems over this reside IN Russia. Nothing prevented Putin from using the oil revenue that WASN'T stolen (about half) in the years when the going was good, from making the reforms and necessary adjustments. It's just that he didn't. He spent the money and the time on... other things. (The money might in the en be the LESS important part, and the time lost more crucial.)
Buying up things like mining rights for pennies goes beyond mere money. It is when russia started to reverse many of these corrupt bad deals they suddenly became our enemy again.

Last edited by Bophis; July 14th, 2017 at 12:29 PM.
Bophis is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 14th, 2017, 12:28 PM   #32
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
That's not the issue. The issue is that by International agreement, beginning with Ukraine and Russia, the territory IS recognized Ukranian territory. And Russia used military force and a unilateral annexation decision to change that.

The problem is the precedent this sets military force and unilateral annexations. Could become VERY interesting.

If Russia wanted a renegotiation of the status of Crimea, there were a slew of other options to explore.
Crimea was given to ukraine by soviets who were conquerors of both ukraine and russia.

International proclaim means zero. Especially when the new ukraine is a revolutionary state usurping the old one and therefore has no rights to anything anyway. This state never had crimea, and they never will.
Bophis is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 12:44 PM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,036

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bophis View Post
International proclaim means zero. Especially when the new ukraine is a revolutionary state usurping the old one and therefore has no rights to anything anyway. This state never had crimea, and they never will.
If we go by that logic ain't Russia also 'a revolutionary state usurping the old one and therefore has no rights to anything anyway'? Legally Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Russian occupation doesn't affect that.
Vaeltaja is online now  
Old July 14th, 2017, 01:18 PM   #34
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
If we go by that logic ain't Russia also 'a revolutionary state usurping the old one and therefore has no rights to anything anyway'? Legally Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Russian occupation doesn't affect that.
Russian federation was not formed by a coup. It's also full of russian people not ukranian ones. Ukranian state formed by a coup and large parts of ukraine have virtually no ukranian people in them. Crimea is full of ethnic rrusians, and tatars who also speak russian and have russian culture.

So it's more like if canada had a communist revolution funded by china and the french in quebec decided to join up with america instead of deal with the rest of the idiots who want to ruin the country.

And and just like in that case ukraine is more corrupt than ever, while the people in crimea are doing nicely.
Bophis is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #35
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: USA
Posts: 422

Final warning of what and to who.
Bophis is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 06:39 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,149

From a Ukrainian perspective, Ukraine should have kept their nukes and permanent security instead of trading them for a ethnically Russian territory that the Russians would be able to take back at will.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; July 14th, 2017 at 06:45 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 06:49 PM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,149

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoryOMore View Post
Countries that assert a sphere of influence always need a buffer around the sphere of influence, which buffer becomes part of the sphere of influence, which then requires a buffer....
Russia kind of had good historical reason to want a buffer. Between 1700 and 1945 they'd been invaded from their western border's 4 different times. Also we've put most of their old sphere of influence under nuclear shield, I don't think you've got anything to worry about.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 11:04 PM   #38
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
I would agree that "saving Russia" from its post Soviet issues would have been pointless. Russia, regardless of some optimistic dreams, is not part of the liberal West, and it never has been. Pumping resources into an historic adversary would have strengthened a current adversary.

Russia understands police power and values autocracy. Those are what make Russians comfortable - politically anyway.
I agree, but Russia is not at all different from the history of Spain that is not part of liberal West, but their respective history are so intertwined with the rest of democratic West.

The way I look at it Putin is not at all different from Franco because their form of dictatorship are both anchored on the traditional ideals of their respective country. Putin is now utilizing the Orthodox Church as the symbol of unity for the Russians in as much as the Franco anchored its political agenda as the modern crusader and champion of the Catholic Church and its history in Spain.

If Spain became a democratic nation, then such is not far from Russia, only that it should not be the Westerners who should call the shot but the Russians the way the Spaniards did it.
dagul is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 11:16 PM   #39
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
Germany had for many generations held the tradition of being militaristic, yet post WW2 a Liberal Democracy was achieved. How come Western Germany was such a success story in the face of such a different history? Could the same result really not have been achieved with post Cold War Russia had the East been flooded with dollar diplomacy?
The Germany that became democratic was the portion that was occupied by the Americans and its allies. The same with Japan, it became democratic in view of the American presence in that nation. That is also true with South Korea.

Russia as the largest territory of Soviet Union that collapsed was never occupied by the Americans and so like China, it shall follow its own system. The democratic ideals will just follow because democracy in not in the tradition of the Russians or the Chinese, which was the situation of Spain.

Russia's trajectory even if the Westerners would be there shall be to achieve as a world power because it is Russia and not a small nation whose military has no history of engaging in large war and other forms of intervention. If we look at deeply over the Russian history, its claim as the traditional successor of the Eastern Roman Empire is deeply ingrained in its culture and that is not surprising at all that even if atheism was forced upon its people during the height of the Cold War and communism, the Orthodox Church moved in auto-motion the moment of disintegration of Soviet Union and became the backbone of the Russian politics as Putin put in it.

Like, the Americans and the British were allies of Soviet Union, but the ideological differences simply separates them and that is true with Russia that sees itself as a power within the region it belongs and is capable of challenging the Americans.
dagul is offline  
Old July 14th, 2017, 11:26 PM   #40
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
Not to minimize things, but how many other nations have/ are doing very similar things? Your list does not constitute a threat anymore than the U.S. is a threat. Once again, whatever aid would have been given to Russia would not have ensured that they became a democratic nation. Take a look a some of the other places around the world where nation building has been attempted where democracy is not part of their past. I was voting in 1990 in U.S. elections. I would not have voted for a candidate who wished to enact some sort of Marshall plan for Russia. Frankly, I think such a proposal would have severely offended nations like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic who suffered greatly under the S.U. To this day, such nations continue to be weary of Russia. Offering aid and assistance during their break up? That would have been rightly interpreted as trying to save their oppressor.
There is logic in that political perspective, because the former Eastern Block are actually Western allies and they should not feel like being left out by the entity they see as their savior comes the time that Russia shall be stronger again. Besides, nations in Europe like Germany or France are those that won't listen to the American point of view of politics and foreign policy while these countries such as Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia and others shall follow the American foreign policy in the region, and the U.S. fully knows that Russia is its rival and helping it would just fasten the recovery of their enemy.

The American interest in the Middle East is among the high priorities of the U.S. and that territory is very close to Russia which means their sphere of influence is going to clash. So there is no valid reason to help a rival.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
cold, collapse, post, russia, saved, war, west



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Were Knights so revered in the West because they saved Christianity? Wrangler29 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 January 13th, 2017 08:36 AM
The cold war/post cold war: Russia and the US invasions Pillbox city Speculative History 30 October 28th, 2014 07:49 PM
waiting for the collapse of the west dakocan Speculative History 57 January 18th, 2010 01:52 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.