[Azons]

http://theglobalstate.com/international ... n-ukraine/

Recently, the Russian Federation has violated Ukrainian sovereignty, invading, occupying, and even annexing portions of eastern and southern Ukraine. Despite crippling economic sanctions from the United States and several European countries, Russia continues to advance, grabbing more and more territory. Why is Russia so interested in Ukraine? What about Ukraine is so valuable that it’s worth alienating the international community and provoking the west?

This article argues that Ukraine, positioned strategically between Russia and her traditional enemies in western Europe, is of extreme importance for the security of the Russian state for its use as a defensive buffer zone.

Thoughts?

[voxlashi]

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO lured the Russian Soviet Republic with promises of a possible admittance into NATO, should the Soviet Union be dismantled. Obviously this catalysed internal westernist forces, which desired a closer relationship with the West and wanted to avoid confrontation. Following Yeltsin's campaign to tear Russia asunder, NATO was susceptible to admit virtually all east block countries into the alliance, while utterly rejecting Russia. This in turn lead to even further isolationist sentiments and scepticism towards the West, in both the Russian populace and the political organization.

The main thrust behind Russia's devotion to subjugate Ukraine (or at least part of its territory) is of course strategic considerations. However, I think that the popular support is influenced, at least in part, by NATO's rejection of Russia in the 90's. The rejection left Russians with the impression that brute force is better than gestures of goodwill, for if the Soviet Union had cracked down harder on the uprisings in Eastern Europe and avoided the collapse, Russians would not experience the plummet in international prestige that they suffered by placating liberal democratic forces.

[Excalibur261]

The rejection left Russians with the impression that brute force is better than gestures of goodwill,

Because of course the Russians were always so quick to embrace good will gestures prior to that.

for if the Soviet Union had cracked down harder on the uprisings in Eastern Europe and avoided the collapse, Russians would not experience the plummet in international prestige that they suffered by placating liberal democratic forces.

Russia didn't have the resources to crack down on Eastern Europe any longer because their economy was falling apart at the seams.


-

[Atlantis]

Of course they had the resources to crack down on dissension just like the Chinese did on Tienanmen square a couple of years later. Gorbachev and the then Soviet elite was lured into thinking that Russia could be part of the West. They have done everything to comply with Western demands short of dismantling the Russian Federation.

[Excalibur261]

Of course they had the resources to crack down on dissension just like the Chinese did on Tienanmen square a couple of years later.

China didn't collapse a few years after Tienanmen square.

Gorbachev and the then Soviet elite was lured into thinking that Russia could be part of the West. They have done everything to comply with Western demands short of dismantling the Russian Federation.

Well they sort of had to comply on certain things.....when their country fell apart.


-

[Atlantis]

China didn't collapse a few years after Tienanmen square.

That is exactly my point, if the Soviets had been prepared to use the same methods the Chinese used at Tienanmen, then the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.

Well they sort of had to comply on certain things.....when their country fell apart.

Their country did not fall apart. The SU fell apart, because they let it fall apart in the believe that they would become part of the Western world. Yeltsin introduced democracy and capitalism not because the SU fell apart, but because Russia wanted to be part of the West.

Instead, Nato started to encircle Russia military and the EU started to encircle Russia economically. And now the sanctions are to deal the final blow.

Edit: wrong quote reference

[Rei Murasame]

This is actually true. It is an accepted fact that the lack of a Russian crackdown against the dissenting countries, as well as a failure to win in Afghanistan and the fact that the Russian Afghan veterans decided to turn their ire against their own government and created an environment where they would refuse to fight in further conflicts, caused the Soviet Union to hesitate.

Paired with the activation of pro-western social forces inside Russia because of NATO promises, it trigged a series of events that unravelled the whole of the USSR very rapidly.

That was the immediate cause.

But there is also the systemic cause, the things which allowed those immediate causes to actually be effective. The Soviet Union - as Chinese officials correctly point out - was too far to the left, and was basically a Russian supremacist outfit masquerading as equality while not even being able to provide a decent quality of life through consumer goods, and that meant that Russia missed the chance to prevent the breakup of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia.

Following the CPSU's demise and the Soviet Union's collapse, the CPC's analysis began examining systematic causes, unlike Western scholarship which often focuses on the immediate causes of the country's collapse.[173] Several leading CPC officials began hailing Khrushchev's rule, saying that he was the first reformer, and that if he had continued after 1964, the Soviet Union would not have witnessed the Era of Stagnation began under Brezhnev and continued under Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko.[174] The main economic failure was that the political leadership did not pursue any reforms to tackle the economic malaise that had taken hold, dismissing certain techniques as capitalist, and never disentangling the planned economy from socialism.[175] Xu Zhixin from the CASS Institute of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, argued that Soviet planners laid too much emphasis on heavy industry, which led to shortages of consumer goods. Unlike his counterparts, Xu argued that the shortages of consumer goods was not an error but "was a consciously planned feature of the system".[175] Other CPSU failures were pursing the policy of state socialism, the high spending on the military-industrial complex, a low tax base and the subsidizing of the economy.[175] The CPC argued that when Gorbachev came to power and introduced his economic reforms, they were "to little, too late, and too fast".[176]

While most CPC researchers criticize the CPSU's economic policies, many have criticized what they see as "Soviet totalitarianism".[178] They accuse Joseph Stalin of creating a system of mass terror, intimidation, annulling the democracy component of democratic centralism and emphasizing centralism, which led to the creation of an inner-party dictatorship.[178] Other points were Russian nationalism, a lack of separation between the Party and state bureaucracies, suppression of non-Russian ethnicities, distortion of the economy through the introduction of over-centralization and the collectivization of agriculture.[178] According to CPC researcher Xiao Guisen, Stalin's policies led to "stunted economic growth, tight surveillance of society, a lack of democracy in decision-making, an absence of the rule of law, the burden of bureaucracy, the CPSU's alienation from people's concerns, and an accumulation of ethnic tensions".[179] Stalin's effect on ideology was also criticized; several researchers accused his policies of being "leftist", "dogmatist" and a deviation "from true Marxism–Leninism.[177] He is criticized for initiating the "bastardization of Leninism", of deviating from true democratic centralism by establishing one-man rule and destroying all inner-party consultation, of misinterpreting Lenin's theory of imperialism and of supporting foreign revolutionary movements only when the Soviet Union could get something out of it.[177] Yu Sui, a CPC theoretician, said that "the collapse of the Soviet Union and CPSU is a punishment for its past wrongs!"[177]

Perhaps you can get away with one or two of those problems manifesting, but to have all of them developing concurrently is almost asking for the opponent to craft and deploy multiple exploits against you.

Of course, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russia turned out to be really awesome, so you won't hear any complaint from me about that outcome.

[Atlantis]

This is actually true. It is an accepted fact that the lack of a Russian crackdown against the dissenting countries, as well as a failure to win in Afghanistan and the fact that the Russian Afghan veterans decided to turn their ire against their own government and created an environment where they would refuse to fight in further conflicts, caused the Soviet Union to hesitate.

I don't believe the SU broke up because of the Afghan war.

If you had lived during the 60s, 70s, and 80s at the interface between East and West in the divided Germany, where you could have gauged the mood on both sides, the cause for the breakup would be perfectly clear to you: by the late 80s, the Soviet elite had lost faith in its own system and started to believe that democracy and the market economy were superior.

To turn the guns on your own people you need a strong belief that such a barbaric act is justified by the need to maintain the regime. The Soviet leadership no longer had that belief by the late 80s.

That was different in China, the leaders there still believed in the system, or at least they believed in the necessity of defending the monopoly on power of the communist party. Therefore, they had no qualms about using the tanks against their own people on Tiananmen Square. If Soviet leaders would have had the same determination, they could have saved the SU. Instead they believed that Russia and its allies could become as prosperous as the West by introducing democracy and the market economy.

In previous decades, Western politicians, especially the social democrats in Germany, had tried to overcome the antagonisms of the cold war in order to establish closer relations with East Germany. This policy of détente (Ostpolitik) was also instrumental in convincing the Soviets that better relations with the West were in their own interest.

[fuser]

lol @ CPC criticizing CPSU for deviating from Marxism-Leninism. The whole criticism is just pot calling kettle.

I will not go into why USSR collapsed (done to death topic) but suffice to say I find this criticism by fake Maoists to be hilariously completely off the mark. But I still support CPC although won't swallow such criticism of CPSU by them.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why is America and NATO so interested in Ukraine?

[UnusuallyUsual]

Why is America and NATO so interested in Ukraine?

That is a much more sane question. "Ukraine" is not that distinct of a nationality from "Russia" to be honest. Look at history. There was no "Ukraine" for a VERY long time, it was just part of Russia. To my mind, the hysterical overreaction by USA and Western Europe to Russia taking over a tiny aspect of "Ukraine" (which used to legally belong to the RSR until the 1950s, and whose population was in favor of the non-violent takeover by a large majority...) is indicative of them seeing a geopolitical advantage to be gained by exploiting the irrational fears of those right-wingers in Eastern Europe, and to help bring down the rise of Russia again, which when combined with a very powerful neighboring China, could seriously call into question current USA/European world domination.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I mean how can America seriously call into question Russia's interest in neighbouring eastern Ukraine when they have spent the last ten+ years waging war in a land on the opposite side of the planet to them. America even with all its NATO allies could never hope to take on Russia or China militarily without destroying themselves in the process so have instead resorted to a campaign of surrounding and isolating both.

[One Degree]

Actually a conventional war between major powers becomes more winnable all the time.
The population of all countries are increasingly moving into a very few mega cities.
Instead of having thousands of targets, you can take out the basis for a country's infrastructure by destroying a couple cities in very defined areas.
I will let you experts tell me if this should be a real concern.

Edit:
'Experts' does not have a derogatory connotation. I am simply acknowledging the superior knowledge of foreign affairs that many of you have.

[Potemkin]

I don't believe the SU broke up because of the Afghan war.

If you had lived during the 60s, 70s, and 80s at the interface between East and West in the divided Germany, where you could have gauged the mood on both sides, the cause for the breakup would be perfectly clear to you: by the late 80s, the Soviet elite had lost faith in its own system and started to believe that democracy and the market economy were superior.

To turn the guns on your own people you need a strong belief that such a barbaric act is justified by the need to maintain the regime. The Soviet leadership no longer had that belief by the late 80s.

For once, Atlantis, I agree with you. The Soviet people didn't decide to end the Soviet Union's existence, the Soviet ruling elite decided to end it. This didn't mean actually giving up power, of course; they simply transformed themselves into oligarchs. And their belief was not so much in the 'superiority' of the capitalist system in the sense of creating better outcomes for the majority of the population, so much as a belief that by adopting capitalism they could instantly make themselves wealthy beyond their wildest dreams by transferring the nationalised assets of the Soviet Union into their own legal ownership. And they were right.

[annatar1914]

For once, Atlantis, I agree with you. The Soviet people didn't decide to end the Soviet Union's existence, the Soviet ruling elite decided to end it. This didn't mean actually giving up power, of course; they simply transformed themselves into oligarchs. And their belief was not so much in the 'superiority' of the capitalist system in the sense of creating better outcomes for the majority of the population, so much as a belief that by adopting capitalism they could instantly make themselves wealthy beyond their wildest dreams by transferring the nationalised assets of the Soviet Union into their own legal ownership. And they were right.

This is exactly what happened, I agree. I also believe that this goal was basically the primary goal which Stalin delayed during his lifetime.

Revolutionaries lie. Sometimes to themselves, but mainly to others, as a weapon to break down resistance to taking what they want to destroy and to steal.

[Potemkin]

This is exactly what happened, I agree. I also believe that this goal was basically the primary goal which Stalin delayed during his lifetime.

In retrospect, far from "betraying" the Revolution (as Trotskyists like to claim), Stalin actually gave the Soviet Union an extra half a century of life.

[UnusuallyUsual]

This pro-Stalin propaganda on this website is really weird to me... this isn't even the right thread to discuss it though, but in all honesty are you seriously claiming the Soviet *people* did better under Stalin than under Lenin/Khrushchev/etc,.? I mean, the entire world is well aware of Stalin's hideous police-state and massive atrocities. How can you really pretend those things weren't real?

[Potemkin]

This pro-Stalin propaganda on this website is really weird to me... this isn't even the right thread to discuss it though, but in all honesty are you seriously claiming the Soviet *people* did better under Stalin than under Lenin/Khrushchev/etc,.? I mean, the entire world is well aware of Stalin's hideous police-state and massive atrocities. How can you really pretend those things weren't real?

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Far from denying that Stalin's police-state or atrocities ever existed, I am claiming that it is because of that police-state and those atrocities that he was able to give the Soviet Union an extra 50 year lease of life. The thing you have to understand about Stalin's Purges of the 1930s was that they worked. They ensured the survival of the Soviet state.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Stalins purges did more damage than good since he killed a lot of officers who actually knew how to manage a war the germans alredy approached Moscow in November 41 mostly due to lack of professional officers and the stupidity of stalin that did nothing to prepare for the coming war

[Gletkin]

wiki: Communist Party of the Soviet Union > According to the Communist Party of China

One of the sources for that source was David L. Shambaugh's China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation and he had some things to say that I found shocking:

They provide a fascinating set of insights into the CCP's self-assessment of its own past policy mistakes as well as its future challenges. For example, one critique that emerged concerned Nikita Khrushchev's attempted reforms in the middle to late 1950s. Khrushchev was proclaimed by some Chinese analysts to have been the Soviet Union's first great reformer, and had he not been overthrown and his policies undermined, the Soviet Union would not have sunk into the prolonged thirty-year stagnation of the Brezhnev-Chernenko eras. The views of Li Jingjie, director of the CASS Institute of Russia and East Europe (later Eastern Europe and Central Asia), are illustrative of this revisionist viewpoint:

"Most Chinese scholars today believe that Khrushchev was the first reformist in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was Khrushchev's successor, and his reforms were a continuation of Khrushchev. The [Chinese] criticisms of Khrushchev's reforms at the time were not correct. His concept of quanmindang (party of the whole people) was a theoretical innovation. Many of us believe that if Khrushchev's reforms had continued, the Soviet Union would have turned out very differently. However, there is still a minority of scholars who believe that Khrushchev's criticisms of Stalin were not correct -- but the vast majority believes that his Twentieth Party Congress speech was correct."

The irony of this assessment, of course, is that it was none other than Chairman Mao and the rest of the CCP leadership who criticized Khrushchev so severely after the "Secret Speech" of 1956, praised Joseph Stalin's legacy,.....Thus, the collapse of the Soviet Union afforded the opportunity for historiography in the 1990s to address policy errors made more than three decades previously. Still, however, the effects of Chinese analysts' own sefl-censorship is apparent. That is, while able to praise Khrushchev and his reforms, they remained incapable of explicitly blaming Mao and his lieutenants (including Deng Xiaoping) for the policy errors on the Chinese side.

I had thought that even after de facto embracing capitalism to a huge degree, the CPC never stopped claiming to be "anti-Revisionist" and that the heart and soul of anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism is that Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was Evil Incarnate. But apparently one of the most prominent academic think tanks of the PRC praises him an innovative Marxist-Leninist thinker. Not that the CPC itself has officially adopted such views but you'd think that they wouldn't tolerate anyone under their rule to say so.

I frequently have the impression that in Dengist China, as long as you don't challenge the right of the CPC to rule and don't bad-mouth Mao and Deng Xiaoping too much (I think the CPC has ruled that Mao was "70% good and 30% bad"), you can advocate just about any POV. I guess as long as they recite the Shahada (There is no leading party but the Communist Party of China and there was no Great Helmsman but Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping was His Apostle) Chinese citizens can even openly praise Leon Trotsky, Hideki Tojo, and Ludwig von Mises.