How the US blew their chance to get Russia as an ally.

[Arrian]

Now that's just crazy. Of course we do exactly that.

Nah, we alternatively threaten them with conventional weapons and/or economic sanctions on the one hand and bribe them with money on the other.

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

We had Russia as an ally once, it was enough.

That's true. They constantly demanded more and more equipment, refused to coordinate plans or even share the status of their military or operational planning with us, spied on us the entire time, demanded we tell them everything we had going on, demanded we launch ill-prepared offensives that would only lead to tens of thousands of unnececessary casualties, and just generally acted like a bunch of dick heads. Too bad we didn't know we were going to have the A-Bomb when we did - we could have just told the Soviets to **** off, let Germany conquer them or at least fight them to a standstill, nuke Germany to end the war, and the Soviet Union would have been ****ed as a major player for decades.

[Myrddin]

Re: How the US blew their chance to get Russia as an ally.

Originally posted by onodera
Around 1994 the support for the US started to wane quite noticeably. It took a big hit when our economy defaulted in 1998 and hit rock bottom when NATO bombed our historical ally, Serbia, in 1999.

This was the critical period in setting Russia's direction and when it all went wrong.

1992 and 1993 were very difficult years going from an economy with rationing by queue to rationing by price, but a market economy started from the bottom up. 1993 had reactionary forces opposing Yeltsin and tanks shooting on the streets of Moscow.

1994 saw things getting better, but the end of 1995 saw insider deals between Yeltsin and oligarchs, where they got state assets cheaply and he got their support in the 1996 election. That election also saw the media (even the non-state owned part) blatently supporting Yeltsin as they did not want a communist president.

The problem in 1996 to 1998 was that the external image of Russia had been changed and western money come flooding in. This took off the pressure to reform and was the point that I lost hope that Russia would transform itself into a western democracy with a functioning economy and legal system.

The financial collapse in 1998 was the point that many Russians lost confidence in a western approach and started looking for a strong leader who they eventually found in Putin.

Overall IMHO:
-the shock therapy was applied too slowly, as senior people did not want the collapse of the major industrial units
-Yeltsin and the oligarchs were too ready to put their personal goals above the good of the country
-when things appeared to be getting better reforms stalled
-Russians do not like being told what to do by outsiders so a larger plan would not have helped

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nah, we alternatively threaten them with conventional weapons and/or economic sanctions on the one hand and bribe them with money on the other.

-Arrian

If you mean that the US explicitely threatens to use nuclear weapons as a first strike then no. The two that they did drop though, were without warning, so the threat is always there. Without warning the US will drop a nuclear bomb on it's enemies.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're whack.

actually he has a point

[Lancer]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's true. They constantly demanded more and more equipment, refused to coordinate plans or even share the status of their military or operational planning with us, spied on us the entire time, demanded we tell them everything we had going on, demanded we launch ill-prepared offensives that would only lead to tens of thousands of unnececessary casualties, and just generally acted like a bunch of dick heads. Too bad we didn't know we were going to have the A-Bomb when we did - we could have just told the Soviets to **** off, let Germany conquer them or at least fight them to a standstill, nuke Germany to end the war, and the Soviet Union would have been ****ed as a major player for decades.

I'm not for nuking anyone incl Japan. We should have nuked Tokyo Bay (off shore a bit) or something and if that didn't work then nuke a city.

[Theben]

Let's not forget that a good number of people here in the US still saw Russia as an enemy after 1991. There's no way Clinton could have passed aid in the form of a Marshall Plan after 1st exiting a recession and then after the Newt took over the House.

In addition the Russians gave out 'parcels' of ex-govt industries to the people, who were by then so desperate 99% sold them off immediately to buy the basics for living. A very few wealthy families bought up those parcels and the stage was set for oligarchy as early as '92.

By the mid-nineties Russia was looking like a money pit to most western companies, as the red tape they were bound with did not apply to home-grown business (or they knew better how to navigate it). I seriously doubt anything we did after that could've been much better than how things turned out.

[David Floyd]

Lancer,

Fair enough, but if you look at the historical situation, all we really saw the A-Bomb as was a really, really, really big bomb. We were already burning down cities and carpet bombing industry - what exactly was the difference, from our point of view at the time?

[Lancer]

Sure, in hindsight then.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I agree that it is easier to do a u-turn in a mini then in a big truck but the reality is Russia didn't even try. When exactly did it become legal to own land in Russia? The very, very end of the Yelsin era? The beginning of the Putin era?

In other words a decade after everyone else had already made this very initial step to a market economy. I call that not trying.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can anyone understand what BK was trying to say?

I'll rephrase it. The west offered an olive branch to Russia, and Russia refused to take it.

Exactly 10 years ago we had no economy to speak of. It was destroyed by the tidal forces of capitalism.

No, it was because communism collapsed and you weren't willing to give market reforms a chance.

20 years ago we were ruled by a wimp who did his best to ruin the country while claiming he was restarting the economy. All for a shiny medal from Sweden and all the pizza he can eat.

The Soviet Union could not be preserved in any situation.

Do you think we should be grateful for that condescending act? Also, back then there was a lot of political freedom here. Nothing good came out of it.

Condescending? It was an olive branch. This is exactly why Russia is isolated.

I don't love Putin, but I don't hate him. He is not a perfect benevolent dictator you might think everyone here is thinking he is, but he's the best ruler we had since that guy from Gori. There's a lot of room for improvement (more people should join Khodorkovsky, for example, but there should be fewer state-owned TV channels), but can you name a better candidate?

A better candidate? Kasparov.

Okay, what do you say we should do?

Repudiate the Soviet union, by handing over Karelia to Finland and East Prussia to the Germans.

The second thing you should do is offer a free trade zone with all the former satellites, by which they can sell their goods free to Russia and vice versa.

The third is to intial market reforms, and strip away the controlled economy.

The fourth is to offer guarantees of independence to all the small republics.

[Straybow]

Re: Re: How the US blew their chance to get Russia as an ally.

Originally posted by germanos
In any case, it seams that for the Russians it would have been best if they had adopted the Marshall plan when it was proposed to them first: in the aftermath of WWII.

They would have been better off under the Patton Plan ("drive the bastards all the way back to Moscow").

[onodera]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A better candidate? Kasparov.

Do you believe people will vote for the guy?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Repudiate the Soviet union, by handing over Karelia to Finland and East Prussia to the Germans.

The second thing you should do is offer a free trade zone with all the former satellites, by which they can sell their goods free to Russia and vice versa.

The third is to intial market reforms, and strip away the controlled economy.

The fourth is to offer guarantees of independence to all the small republics.

Only if you give California to Mexico first.

I'm not well informed about the state of our trade agreements, but I don't think there's a lot of restrictions. We're actually subsidizing some of our neighbours by selling raw commodities at a low price.

I agree that small businesses in Russia are in a sad state, but I'm against large corporations controlling our heavy industry and natural resourses. These should be nationalized if they already aren't.

Fourth is not a problem at all. We have never tried to annex any of the former Soviet republics.

[Kidlicious]

I don't know if privatization vs nationalization matters much in Russia. All the proceeds will go to the rich anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you believe people will vote for the guy?

He's got good ideas. He'd be a strong leader of Russia.

Only if you give California to Mexico first.

It's territory that rightfully belongs to Finland and Germany.

Just because others do things that are wrong, doesn't justify you doing wrong things too.

Fourth is not a problem at all. We have never tried to annex any of the former Soviet republics.

That would mean withdrawing from all of Georgia.