Mon Jun 13th, 2022 at 09:11:09 PM EST
... after three decades of engagement by the west ...
Russian President Boris Yeltsin had made Russia's opposition to such extreme expansion very clear. In a 1995 speech, he said:
"Those who insist on an expansion of NATO are making a major political mistake. The flames of war could burst out across the whole of Europe."
The following month Yeltsin issued this warning to Clinton. 3/21/97
We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History | by John Lewis Gaddis - 1997 |
NATO: Relations with Russia
West and relations with Yeltsin, establishment new Russia Federation ...
Russia In Transition: Perils of the Fast Track to Capitalism - 1992
Four Reformers in Russia's Shock Therapy
In the wake of the 1990's, the future of nascent post-Soviet Russia was in the hands of four groups of reformers, who were entrusted with applying a medicine known as "shock therapy" to a collapsing patient. These "doctors" were independent foreign advisers, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US government, and, most importantly, President Yeltsin's administration (Aslund 2007a, 2007b). Only the fourth was an internal group; the other three were external to the country. All four groups were, for the most part, committed to shock therapy. While no one was more invested in the cause than Yeltsin's administration, the West, with its accumulated capital and experience, could have played a decisive role - but it did not. This essay examines the role of each "doctor" in detail and argues that help from the West was minimal, while Yeltsin's administration was too politically polarized and weak to successfully implement the policies of shock therapy. As a result, shock therapy failed to achieve its fundamental goals in Russia.
During Yeltsin Era, UK and US Stripped Assets Off Russia
From the diaries ...
Mark Ames: Cheney Starts New Cold War Over Oil | by Nomad - June 2, 2006 |
The best way to answer this is to go back and retrace how Russia and America wound up in this once-unimaginable situation. It would seem to be a massive policy failure, allowing Russia to become a Cold War enemy again, perhaps the greatest American foreign policy failure of our time. Unless, of course, you put all the blame on Putin's evil little authoritarian shoulders, which is the natural tendency of nearly every American commentator.
They say Americans' memories are short, but that's like saying a Nazi's sense of compassion was fleeting. Americans literally rewrite their memories over and over. Case in point: Just four-and-a-half years ago, Vladimir Putin was treated as a rock star in America. You probably forgot about it, so I'm going to remind you because it's not a pretty memory.
After 9/11, Putin became our biggest, bestest friend in the world when he made his famous first-to-the-phone call to Bush and green-lighted American forces entering Central Asia for the war against the Taliban. I was in America at the time, and I remember all too well how happy Americans were to have the mysterious, morally ambiguous yet effective evil guy joining our side.
In fact, I can say that I've never, ever in my lifetime seen a foreign leader more adored than Putin was in that brief period, from September through December of 2001. Articles like the November 21st "To a Russian, with Lust," by Boston Globe staffer Joanna Weiss, capture the rather embarrassing Pootiemania: she described the man who had shut down the formerly independent TV station NTV, quashed the free media and consolidated power as "Compact and athletic, with a Mona Lisa smile," "visibly buff," "balding, in a cute Jean-Luc Picard sort of way... or maybe a Thorn Yorke sort of way." Even heavyweights like the Los Angeles Times, which now tries to out-anti-Putin its rivals, wore out their kneepads fawning over Putin.
In its November 24th editorial, "In a Word, Zdorovo," the L.A. Times concluded, with full Spielberg happy ending and John The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks and China-Russia Cooperation
Williams score accompaniment, "Never mind for now the remaining political and policy differences between the two countries and the savvy public relations. ... If Americans could feel real terror at times about an opponent's evil 50 years ago, then there's nothing wrong with reveling for a warm moment in the changes today. 'Wow' is one word for it. 'Zdorovo' is another."
[Source: Mark Ames in The Exile]
Ah, it's so vile it's is fun. For me anyway. God, I hope whoever wrote that has to read it again. Read it and weep, folks.
A Russian 'Bush Doctrine' In the CIS?
An important element in this doctrine has been the principle of pre-emptive strikes. Speaking at West Point on 17 September 2002, President Bush spelled out this principle: "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the U.S. can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first". The essence in this statement is that weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism constitute a lethal mix, prompting Washington to reconsider traditional elements of security policy, such as containment and deterrence.
Again, according to Bush Jr., "deterrence - the promise of massive retaliation against nations - means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies". The thrust of this argument is that while rallying for support from the international community and international law, the USA will also reserve for itself the right to act unilaterally on the basis of imminent danger, or even the suspicion that some states may have long-term ambitions of inflicting damage on the USA.
An offshoot of this concept is the principle of striking not only against terrorist groups, but also against states that are somehow assisting terrorist networks. On 13 September 2002, President Bush stated clearly that states that in some way assist terrorists in fulfilling their aims should be held responsible for terrorist acts. Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, made this even more explicit, indicating that US policies would be directed at "ending states that sponsor terrorism".
Forever War and The New American Police State | by Steven D on May 17th, 2006 |
How the U.S.-Russian Relationship Went Bad | by William Burns - March 8, 2019 |
William Burns a career diplomat, appointed by President Biden as new CIA Director ... National Security nominees who 'embody my beliefs'
Recent diaries on history relations between Russia and Europe …