Worthy of mention here is the pivotal role of the Korean War (1950-1953) in creating the conditions of global hostility and superpower rivalry that made the Cold War such a dangerous and shameful time in human history.
That regional conflict was a joint North Korean-Russian-Chinese disaster intended to solidify Marxist predominance in northeast Asia. The only blame borne by the US vis-a-vis the Korean War was its underestimation of the danger of communist aggression there.
The outbreak of hostilities in June 1950 proved to be one of the last times during the Cold War when the US was caught off guard. Tragically, one of the lessons drawn from the fighting in Korea was that the US should fight in Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh would solicit American support lest his nation follow Tibet in being absorbed by China. No deal, said Washington, believing that Ho's offer was just another Red trick.
It was the Korean experience that made the US believe that communism presented a united front. Today's American-Vietnamese joint exercises aimed at containing Xi Jinping's China are proof that a huge miscalculation lay behind the US intervention in Vietnam.
As for Korea, the refusal to follow Gen. MacArthur's plan for total victory has led to the dilemma that we face today. True, MacArthur might have set off World War III. But we were left with the Kim dynasty, whose Jong-Un version might yet set off a nuclear war that will prove far, far more devastating than MacArthur's would have been.
That regional conflict was a joint North Korean-Russian-Chinese disaster intended to solidify Marxist predominance in northeast Asia. The only blame borne by the US vis-a-vis the Korean War was its underestimation of the danger of communist aggression there.
The outbreak of hostilities in June 1950 proved to be one of the last times during the Cold War when the US was caught off guard. Tragically, one of the lessons drawn from the fighting in Korea was that the US should fight in Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh would solicit American support lest his nation follow Tibet in being absorbed by China. No deal, said Washington, believing that Ho's offer was just another Red trick.
It was the Korean experience that made the US believe that communism presented a united front. Today's American-Vietnamese joint exercises aimed at containing Xi Jinping's China are proof that a huge miscalculation lay behind the US intervention in Vietnam.
As for Korea, the refusal to follow Gen. MacArthur's plan for total victory has led to the dilemma that we face today. True, MacArthur might have set off World War III. But we were left with the Kim dynasty, whose Jong-Un version might yet set off a nuclear war that will prove far, far more devastating than MacArthur's would have been.
5
"Instead, the United States did what declining superpowers often do: engage in futile, needless wars far from its borders, in which short-term security ..."
What short-term security?
What short-term security?
5
Reagan and the republicans treated the end of the cold war as a victory for them rather than an opportunity for Peace. In reality the Soviet Empire was all but dead by the time Reagan took office. Instead of seizing upon the opportunity to make the world a better place They all but ignored Russia and in so doing sewed the hate that ultimately gave rise to Putin.
The same is true of the South after the Civil War and Germany after World War I . When all you think about is victory and not about the peace all you do is soe the seeds of the next war.
The same is true of the South after the Civil War and Germany after World War I . When all you think about is victory and not about the peace all you do is soe the seeds of the next war.
12
Some of us were not delusional. We knew intuitively that there was not going be real peace and certainly not a peace dividend. As for the two Bush administrations and their wars, both were totally unnecessary. George H. Bush signaled to Sadamm Hussein that it had the green light to invade Kuwait and then acted surprised when it happened. After him Bill Clinton showed terrible weakness when Bosnia and Serbia dissolved into war and the slaughter of thousands of Muslims while he refused to mobilize NATO to end the war. He also stumbled badly in Somalia, further weakening American militarily by failing to understand how to support our troops on the ground. And he failed to destroy Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity. George H. Bush immediately after the first Iraq war began to withdraw troops and armored divisions from Europe adding to the weakness and hubris of victory. Finally at 9/11 George Bush, the spoiled son of GHWB, failed to understand that an invasion of Afghanistan no matter how warranted was unnecessary. He also refused to allow the necessary troops to engage and destroy Bin Laden who was surrounded at Tora Bora.
The Cold War had ended for Russia but it became a hot war for the U.S. And in the process we lost sight of what we had gained in Europe but were losing in dealing with the new Russia and the rest of the world. We forget what leadership is. The U.S. was led by 3 feckless administrations after Ronald Reagan. We ended our leadership of the free world.
The Cold War had ended for Russia but it became a hot war for the U.S. And in the process we lost sight of what we had gained in Europe but were losing in dealing with the new Russia and the rest of the world. We forget what leadership is. The U.S. was led by 3 feckless administrations after Ronald Reagan. We ended our leadership of the free world.
5
Yes, the United States won the Cold War. And now Russia runs our elections. How odd.
7
The bit about privatization of Russian industry and natural resources caught my eye. It should have been elaborated upon because, I believe, it had a major effect on the subsequent history.
Hordes of American "advisers" of the Chicago school descended on Moscow to urge their ideological laissez-faire economics on Russia's leaders, who were only too willing to oblige. State assets were sold at knockdown prices, largely to former communist officials who suddenly discovered they wanted to be capitalists. Which quickly led to oligarchy and helped make Vladimir Putin, reportedly, the richest person on earth.
Hordes of American "advisers" of the Chicago school descended on Moscow to urge their ideological laissez-faire economics on Russia's leaders, who were only too willing to oblige. State assets were sold at knockdown prices, largely to former communist officials who suddenly discovered they wanted to be capitalists. Which quickly led to oligarchy and helped make Vladimir Putin, reportedly, the richest person on earth.
11
American triumphalism prevented a 1990's Marshal Plan-like effort to defuse social decay and in 9/11 American triumphalism blew past targeted military responses and international police operation to do The American Way: invade another country!
We now have a disaster in Iraq and enormous benefits to Iran; disaster in Afghanistan and benefits to China and Russia; disaster in Syria and benefits to Iran and Russia; pending disaster in the Korean peninsula and benefits that will go to China.
Where did the US benefit from American triumphalism? Only in the wealth, power, and egos of Republican politicians.
We now have a disaster in Iraq and enormous benefits to Iran; disaster in Afghanistan and benefits to China and Russia; disaster in Syria and benefits to Iran and Russia; pending disaster in the Korean peninsula and benefits that will go to China.
Where did the US benefit from American triumphalism? Only in the wealth, power, and egos of Republican politicians.
14
"But most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and if the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States."
Not only does this statement have nothing to support it, there are polls indicating a strong isolationist streak among the US public going back decades. That was paragraph three, and I had no motivation to continue reading the article after that statement - fairly certain that the rest of the article was riddled with misinformation designed to support a dubious thesis.
Not only does this statement have nothing to support it, there are polls indicating a strong isolationist streak among the US public going back decades. That was paragraph three, and I had no motivation to continue reading the article after that statement - fairly certain that the rest of the article was riddled with misinformation designed to support a dubious thesis.
6
I think that your reference to polls indicating isolationism support's the author's points. An isolationist belief--at a fundamental level--is based on the view that the world would be safe only if the world looked more like America and if other countries abided by the will of the US. Isolationists do not cheerfully accept vast differences in the rest of the world and certainly are not comfortable with the idea that other governments can and will act on their own and impose their will on the US.
7
I take issue with the comment about the Bush-Cheney invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9-11, “…the United States did not act out of strategic purpose. It acted because its people were understandably angry and fearful. And it acted because it could. …”
Reading the work of the Project for a New American Century, the 9-11 fiasco was the necessary “Pearl Harbor,” to enable us to project our sole, super power strength. Many of the cheerleaders rooting on TV for these wars were signatories to the project.
Bush-Cheney could act because they made the American people irrationally fearful, which resulted in the acceptance of the irrational response.
Our bombing Afghanistan because they “were harboring” al Qaida was irrational. Would the Georgia Air National Guard bombing North and South Carolina because the terrorist Erik Rudolph was being harbored have acceptable behavior?
It was not simply imperial ideology, it was financially motivated. In Afghanistan, it was the building of the natural gas pipeline and over four trillion dollars in untapped mineral wealth. Contractors outnumber our soldiers in Afghanistan, and Halliburton-KBR was in the tank before 9-11.
Iraq has the cheapest oil to extract in the world and it was state owned. Libya was also state owned oil, until its fall.
Fossil fuels play a role in Syria, too. Russian and Iranian NG pipelines supply Europe. Assad refuses to allow the $4 billion dollar Qatari NG pipeline to cross its land from the Sunni Peninsula.
Reading the work of the Project for a New American Century, the 9-11 fiasco was the necessary “Pearl Harbor,” to enable us to project our sole, super power strength. Many of the cheerleaders rooting on TV for these wars were signatories to the project.
Bush-Cheney could act because they made the American people irrationally fearful, which resulted in the acceptance of the irrational response.
Our bombing Afghanistan because they “were harboring” al Qaida was irrational. Would the Georgia Air National Guard bombing North and South Carolina because the terrorist Erik Rudolph was being harbored have acceptable behavior?
It was not simply imperial ideology, it was financially motivated. In Afghanistan, it was the building of the natural gas pipeline and over four trillion dollars in untapped mineral wealth. Contractors outnumber our soldiers in Afghanistan, and Halliburton-KBR was in the tank before 9-11.
Iraq has the cheapest oil to extract in the world and it was state owned. Libya was also state owned oil, until its fall.
Fossil fuels play a role in Syria, too. Russian and Iranian NG pipelines supply Europe. Assad refuses to allow the $4 billion dollar Qatari NG pipeline to cross its land from the Sunni Peninsula.
12
Prof. Westad's paragraph on the Clinton Administration is brief and short on facts, so it's hard to pinpoint where the author went wrong.
3
I couldn't agree more about the travesty of the Russian revolution. Frankly, I never understood the problem the Russian people had with the Romanovs. They were charming, gracious friends of the USA. Freedom!!!
1
Brilliant article.
One step further back in history : The Cold War emerged as a consequence of the US bypassing Churchill, who anticipated Stalin's plans to expand into Eastern Europe after the Nazis would be defeated.
"On the very first day of the Tehran Conference, November 28, Churchill summoned all of his charisma to present Stalin with the Balkan option to ease pressure on the Eastern Front. Roosevelt had not expected the British prime minister to break ranks with him and was at first surprised. Stalin had long since suspected that the British might try to cross the Adriatic, an area Stalin already considered in his sphere of influence."
Once Stalin expanded into Eastern Europe and the Eastern part of Germany, the confrontation was on.
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-bid-to-break-turkish-neu...
One step further back in history : The Cold War emerged as a consequence of the US bypassing Churchill, who anticipated Stalin's plans to expand into Eastern Europe after the Nazis would be defeated.
"On the very first day of the Tehran Conference, November 28, Churchill summoned all of his charisma to present Stalin with the Balkan option to ease pressure on the Eastern Front. Roosevelt had not expected the British prime minister to break ranks with him and was at first surprised. Stalin had long since suspected that the British might try to cross the Adriatic, an area Stalin already considered in his sphere of influence."
Once Stalin expanded into Eastern Europe and the Eastern part of Germany, the confrontation was on.
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-bid-to-break-turkish-neu...
3
Very interesting summary and analysis. To add a bit: I think that the collapse of the Western capitalist system, which we are seeing now, was just as inevitable as the collapse of the Soviet/Communist system. As I tell my students, the communists collapsed first, but the considerable ills of unrestrained capitalism are obvious and manifest. The social destruction they cause is now playing out. Second, under Clinton, the US used its "unipolar moment" to push its system of economics and politics on the rest of the world. Under Bush, the US made an outright attempt to become an empire, believing that it had been "a giant acting like a pygmy" (to paraphrase Krauthammer). Of course, it turned out that the US had no sense of the real world. It vastly overestimated its power and the ability of military force to accomplish anything. This has not changed, but it has had the effect of exhausting the US, even as the US continues to engage in stupid, pointless, losing conflicts (Afghanistan). But the US is so mired in its superpower illusions, it cannot get over this. The points about Russia are also excellent. In the 1990s, Kissinger said the West would regret letting Russia fall apart. He was right. But the West also pushed NATO right up to Russian borders, indulged in the use of violence all over the world, and set the stage for Putin as a response to Western aggression. The US has always had an overly simple-minded view of the world. There is little evidence this has changed.
22
The US will never be the same again since the demise of the cold war. It lost much of its raison d'être and turned 9/11 into CW 2.0. The militarised, delusional, response to 9/11 gave Bin Laden his victory since all that was achieved was the reality of America's powerlessness despite its military. Look at where it is today. Trump's victory can be traced directly to the failure of the US response to 9/11 and drop in both its international reputation and domestic self-confidence.
The "Clash of Civilizations" replaced the cold war - except that there was/is no clash of civilisations. A marginalised renegade group of rebels without a cause does not make a military enemy - nor a cultural, nor ideological one. The problem is, most US politicians and media are too frightened to still speak the truth. And of course, the self-serving generals and security industry love the idea of an endless un-loseable war. The fact that it's also unwinnable is something they keep under wraps.
The American people are still, for the post part, delusional because they have been willingly compliant in allowing themselves to be psyoped by the military, security apparatus and posturing politicians. And now it's paying a price it can't afford for this indulgence. Seriously...how great a threat do these Afghan and Iraqi terrorists really pose to the US? Zero? Or thereabouts....
The "Clash of Civilizations" replaced the cold war - except that there was/is no clash of civilisations. A marginalised renegade group of rebels without a cause does not make a military enemy - nor a cultural, nor ideological one. The problem is, most US politicians and media are too frightened to still speak the truth. And of course, the self-serving generals and security industry love the idea of an endless un-loseable war. The fact that it's also unwinnable is something they keep under wraps.
The American people are still, for the post part, delusional because they have been willingly compliant in allowing themselves to be psyoped by the military, security apparatus and posturing politicians. And now it's paying a price it can't afford for this indulgence. Seriously...how great a threat do these Afghan and Iraqi terrorists really pose to the US? Zero? Or thereabouts....
16
You are right--the delusional and militarized response to 9/11 gave Bin Laden what he was looking for in preparing what amounted to a lucky punch.
2
Rubbing Russia's face in through NATO extractions surrounding wounded bear's sphere of influence presently emboldening China. U.S. no longer arrogant enough to threaten Nuclear War over disputed rocks.
2
"[I]t is hard to argue that a global Cold War that was to last for almost 50 years and threaten the obliteration of the world could not have been avoided. There were points along the way when leaders could have held back, especially on military rivalry and the arms race. But the ideological conflict at the root of the tension made such sensible thinking very difficult to achieve."
**********************************************************
The author is forgetting that the root of the Cold War was Soviet oppression of Eastern Europe and its need to control those nations through repression of speech, thought, culture and religion. Communist ideology provided an alternative belief system that justified and drove that oppression.
For Americans and Europeans -- but not so much for those in other areas who were the subject of proxy wars -- the Cold War was a battle between freedom and oppression, and the effect that Communism had on the cultures of Eastern Europe made it extremely obvious what awaited nations that fell under Soviet control. The struggle was considerably different than the ethnic and political clashes currently under way in Ukraine.
**********************************************************
The author is forgetting that the root of the Cold War was Soviet oppression of Eastern Europe and its need to control those nations through repression of speech, thought, culture and religion. Communist ideology provided an alternative belief system that justified and drove that oppression.
For Americans and Europeans -- but not so much for those in other areas who were the subject of proxy wars -- the Cold War was a battle between freedom and oppression, and the effect that Communism had on the cultures of Eastern Europe made it extremely obvious what awaited nations that fell under Soviet control. The struggle was considerably different than the ethnic and political clashes currently under way in Ukraine.
6
The Soviet Union simply was not working when Gorbachev took power. He and others in his generation could see that the whole system was dysfunctional and could not continue as it was and not simply breakdown. It's industry and infrastructure were built up in a hurry going back to the beginnings. There was a lack of expertise and a lack of insistence upon quality control in order to just finish one project after another. The pressure to perform exceeded the care to do things well. It was like the first intercontinental railroads in the U.S., just enough to achieve operations but needing to be entirely replaced upon completion. The difference being that the railroads began making money immediately so they could finish it all right. The Soviet Union just kept on building roughly and quickly and ended up unable to produce goods of quality like the rest of the industrialized world.
The System had no unified structure, the military and the non-military parts were entirely independent and neither reported to anyone with overall command. This resulted in contending power centers and no overall responsibility for how it all operated.
Gorbachev wanted peace with the West so that he could begin to fix the mess and to save the Communist future for the state. But it was just too far gone.
Marxism Leninism failed and many conservatives in the West immediately asserted that all attempts to moderate the bad effects of capitalism were proven wrong and needed to be eliminated.
The System had no unified structure, the military and the non-military parts were entirely independent and neither reported to anyone with overall command. This resulted in contending power centers and no overall responsibility for how it all operated.
Gorbachev wanted peace with the West so that he could begin to fix the mess and to save the Communist future for the state. But it was just too far gone.
Marxism Leninism failed and many conservatives in the West immediately asserted that all attempts to moderate the bad effects of capitalism were proven wrong and needed to be eliminated.
4
Interesting interpretation of the events. I can certainly agree that the post Soviet era was largely squandered by Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the criticisms may be playing Monday morning quarterback, as decisions have to be made real time, whereas history can be reviewed over and over.
We certainly lost the opportunity for international cooperation. As soon as the cold war ended, we simply forgot about Afghanistan, Congo, and Nicaragua. That would have been a far better moment to "nation build". The driving forces behind the problems in Afghanistan are historical and far more entangled and complicated compared to Nicaragua, so it is hard to say what would have happened even if far more had been done to rebuild it, but it sure did not help that we ignored the problem for so long and then come in with our naive notions that we could fix it once the damage was clearly done. Our "escapades" in Iraq were appallingly foolish.
I'm am far less optimistic about the idea that the EU should have invited Russia into the fold. In effect, the successful Russian leader must be ruthless and perhaps the most successful are even amoral, though rare exceptions like Peter the Great exist to counter the latter. Nevertheless, whether "elected" or not, dictators like Putin seem almost inevitable with sound historical precedent. Perhaps with enough time, Russian might some day overcome this condition, but we are probably talking about dozens of generations.
We certainly lost the opportunity for international cooperation. As soon as the cold war ended, we simply forgot about Afghanistan, Congo, and Nicaragua. That would have been a far better moment to "nation build". The driving forces behind the problems in Afghanistan are historical and far more entangled and complicated compared to Nicaragua, so it is hard to say what would have happened even if far more had been done to rebuild it, but it sure did not help that we ignored the problem for so long and then come in with our naive notions that we could fix it once the damage was clearly done. Our "escapades" in Iraq were appallingly foolish.
I'm am far less optimistic about the idea that the EU should have invited Russia into the fold. In effect, the successful Russian leader must be ruthless and perhaps the most successful are even amoral, though rare exceptions like Peter the Great exist to counter the latter. Nevertheless, whether "elected" or not, dictators like Putin seem almost inevitable with sound historical precedent. Perhaps with enough time, Russian might some day overcome this condition, but we are probably talking about dozens of generations.
4
A human being is simultaneously both an individual and a member of society, and our institutions should reflect that: the liberties of individual rights balanced by the responsibilities of community membership, the duties of working for and in a corporation balanced by the power of collective bargaining, the freedom of spending one's earnings balanced by the taxes one pays for the benefit of the larger society. Is it really that complicated that we can't see the happy medium?
Thank you for this informed article.
Thank you for this informed article.
3
The truth and reality of the cold war is the poisonous pile of nuclear waste sitting on the banks of the Columbia river that now threatens life as we know it in the northern hemisphere.
3
Odd Premise: A quest for perfection took a terrible toll in 20th Century. Any subsequent quest must start from a state of fear.
Odd Hypothesis: Young people's pursuit of ideals for self, family, and beyond can be rendered worthless, if all generations concentrate on the mitigation of risks to established self interests.
Odd Hypothesis: Young people's pursuit of ideals for self, family, and beyond can be rendered worthless, if all generations concentrate on the mitigation of risks to established self interests.
1
A memo to Trump on his way to Beijing. If we withdrew our boots on the ground in South-Korea, made them come home to build a wall, a levvy, go fly fishing, deer hunting, practicing hide and seek in the cornfields along highway 61 or anything? And then drew the line.
1
Photo_Caption: "President George H. W. Bush, left, and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow, '91"
I like Mr. Gorbachev; ...Mr. Reagan, Bush, Bush, 'N, Trump? Not, nearly, so much!
There are 10-15,000's REAL, Vs., (G.W. Bush's-/-A.Blair's), IMAGINARY N.-W.M.D.'s sitting in their launchers. 'Preppers' are folks who believe they can survive a 'Mad_Max, Beyond Thunderdome' environment; {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome#Plot}.
Despite what preppers fantasize...it's absurd to pretend humanity will survive any 2nd. Nuclear_War; (WW-2: 1st. Nuclear_War). Here's some questions:
Current population: 7 billion+ Projected: 9-11 billion+ by 2050...
1.) What are the projected psychological effects of 9-11 billion, suddenly, (48-72 Hr.'s), reduced to a mere 50-100,000?
2.) Excluding cannibalism, (ONLY for discussion's sake), 'N, remembering that 10's of 1,000's of humans alive, today will die,in 24hrs., by starvation...how will we feed ourselves X's 10-50 years, until post-N.-WMD-weather improves, assuming...it EVER does?? Here's one for Pro_Life_Jihadists:
3.) How would we manage teratogenic cancers, induced in a radiation saturated (Earthly), environment?
3.a) Will, (lead-lined), 'Handmaid's Tale-like' cloaks be mandatory? (See Dante's Divine_Comedy, 'Bolgia-6')...
4.) What about clean water, which is already a problem for millions of folks??
I like Mr. Gorbachev; ...Mr. Reagan, Bush, Bush, 'N, Trump? Not, nearly, so much!
There are 10-15,000's REAL, Vs., (G.W. Bush's-/-A.Blair's), IMAGINARY N.-W.M.D.'s sitting in their launchers. 'Preppers' are folks who believe they can survive a 'Mad_Max, Beyond Thunderdome' environment; {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome#Plot}.
Despite what preppers fantasize...it's absurd to pretend humanity will survive any 2nd. Nuclear_War; (WW-2: 1st. Nuclear_War). Here's some questions:
Current population: 7 billion+ Projected: 9-11 billion+ by 2050...
1.) What are the projected psychological effects of 9-11 billion, suddenly, (48-72 Hr.'s), reduced to a mere 50-100,000?
2.) Excluding cannibalism, (ONLY for discussion's sake), 'N, remembering that 10's of 1,000's of humans alive, today will die,in 24hrs., by starvation...how will we feed ourselves X's 10-50 years, until post-N.-WMD-weather improves, assuming...it EVER does?? Here's one for Pro_Life_Jihadists:
3.) How would we manage teratogenic cancers, induced in a radiation saturated (Earthly), environment?
3.a) Will, (lead-lined), 'Handmaid's Tale-like' cloaks be mandatory? (See Dante's Divine_Comedy, 'Bolgia-6')...
4.) What about clean water, which is already a problem for millions of folks??
1
Successful social contract must reflect the underlying economic environment of which there are 3 - pastoral, agrarian, trading.
Both Capitalist Democracy and Communism were tied to agrarian economy, thus to land. Hence the notion of nation states. In trading Athens, 2,400 years ago Socrates offered a more efficient alternative to Democracy - the Republic, a knowledge-based economy let by the just.
America's Founding Fathers were land and slave owners, and the framework they set up required one Civil War and many Amendments to cater for a changing economy. Today it can no longer be morphed to fit the needs of Globalization and Free Trade. It is wasteful.
Communism failed for the same reason - prevented free movement of goods, money, and people.
A thousand years after Socrates, Mohammed was up against the same forces - Big Business and Bankers. Whereas Socrates lost, Mohammed won with better strategy and frugal socio-economics based on freedom and justice.
Today, 2 competing socio-ecomics, Capitalism and Islam, vie for hearts and minds of the youth. The wasteful West can only win against efficient Islam if it dumps Democracy, the rule of the Demos, the 5% moneyed males, and adopts what is closest to it - Socratic Republic, a "govt of the people, by the people, for the people" of the 99%.
Curiously, our "win" only delayed our reform. The losers, Russia and China, are well on their way to tie up Asia, Europe, and Africa into one with New Silk Road and One Belt One Road.
Both Capitalist Democracy and Communism were tied to agrarian economy, thus to land. Hence the notion of nation states. In trading Athens, 2,400 years ago Socrates offered a more efficient alternative to Democracy - the Republic, a knowledge-based economy let by the just.
America's Founding Fathers were land and slave owners, and the framework they set up required one Civil War and many Amendments to cater for a changing economy. Today it can no longer be morphed to fit the needs of Globalization and Free Trade. It is wasteful.
Communism failed for the same reason - prevented free movement of goods, money, and people.
A thousand years after Socrates, Mohammed was up against the same forces - Big Business and Bankers. Whereas Socrates lost, Mohammed won with better strategy and frugal socio-economics based on freedom and justice.
Today, 2 competing socio-ecomics, Capitalism and Islam, vie for hearts and minds of the youth. The wasteful West can only win against efficient Islam if it dumps Democracy, the rule of the Demos, the 5% moneyed males, and adopts what is closest to it - Socratic Republic, a "govt of the people, by the people, for the people" of the 99%.
Curiously, our "win" only delayed our reform. The losers, Russia and China, are well on their way to tie up Asia, Europe, and Africa into one with New Silk Road and One Belt One Road.
Power, influence and control for what purpose? This should be the question. Promotion of the well being and advancement of all humanity, or only of a small elite? Age after age, humans expend vast resources in treasure and human life to destroy others in order to advance their small tribe. Then, the tide turns and victory goes to the former victim. An endless cycle of death and destruction that leaves a world of incredible wealth, resource and invention on the verge of doomsday. We are an intelligent species, or are we?
2
What a pity that at a time when a visionary, informed U.S. president could negotiate a path of economic advantage and leadership for the years ahead, we have a big bawling baby in the White House. Trump doesn't have the intelligence, background, or desire to think strategically, or to understand, even minimally, the post WWII and post-USSR world. I cannot imagine him learning about even the most basic issues and events. He cares first about himself and his own narrow interests. So we will miss opportunities, and we will struggle where we could have succeeded. Those who back Trump will just default to blaming the old standbys for their suffering and stagnation: "liberals," Obama, immigration, blacks, Jews, "Marxists" and so on. If we truly have to just hang on through Trump's childish, playground-mentality term of office, I only hope that we manage to avoid war, and next time around elect a smart, wise, and resourceful president.
2
If the liberals had been doing a decent job, Trump would never have gone far. And I'm slightly left of center, no Trump supporter. Of course the Republicans got in their way, but Obama had two paths to the public option: 1) Start negotiating with single payer and 'settle' for the public option, or 2) order the VA to hire actuaries and selling insurance in a parallel structure. He did neither.
They could not stop the decline of the lower middle class, and that is de rigueur. Instead they said in effect "the world is going that way and there's nothing we can do about it." That will never get anyone elected, no matter how right it might be.
They could not stop the decline of the lower middle class, and that is de rigueur. Instead they said in effect "the world is going that way and there's nothing we can do about it." That will never get anyone elected, no matter how right it might be.
2
This type of thinking and distribution of blame is rooted In the past; it's exactly what we don't need now. It only divides us more and keeps us bickering. I don't care what "the liberals" and "the conservatives" did back whenever; I don't even care what errors GW Bush made or how the Yalta conference set the stage etc. etc. You can take this all the way back to the Roman Empire. It's for historians to suss out.
We live in the present --- and according to the arrow of time, the future is on its way. We are in unique trouble with Donald Trump because of who and what he is, and not because of what anybody else was and did. If Trump were even a minimally normal person, he would be able to grasp the challenges and make rational decisions --- even if they turned out to be the wrong ones. Trump is, as they say, not even wrong.
Should we make it through this benighted term, which I hope is truncated by his removal from office, we will need informed, forward-looking and strategic leadership to position us for a successful future. It does no good to dwell on who threw the rock through the window. We are in a crisis, and opportunities are passing us courtesy of Trump. This is happening in real time. The challenge right now today is, how do we live with an incompetent and demented president and still derive some quality of life, for ourselves, for those who share the planet with us, including animals, and for our kids?
We live in the present --- and according to the arrow of time, the future is on its way. We are in unique trouble with Donald Trump because of who and what he is, and not because of what anybody else was and did. If Trump were even a minimally normal person, he would be able to grasp the challenges and make rational decisions --- even if they turned out to be the wrong ones. Trump is, as they say, not even wrong.
Should we make it through this benighted term, which I hope is truncated by his removal from office, we will need informed, forward-looking and strategic leadership to position us for a successful future. It does no good to dwell on who threw the rock through the window. We are in a crisis, and opportunities are passing us courtesy of Trump. This is happening in real time. The challenge right now today is, how do we live with an incompetent and demented president and still derive some quality of life, for ourselves, for those who share the planet with us, including animals, and for our kids?
2
Not a profound commentary. Superficial, banal, many words saying little.
3
Reading your excellent column, I am struck by how similar Putin and Trump really are, as politicians and as persons. Also, how similar their "populist" support is. Not good for the world!
4
The very fact that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was touted as a victory should have been seen as an omen.
No-one in power in the West paused to consider the steps that would have, indeed should have re-integrated Russia and the other nations of the Warsaw Pact into the construct of Europe and beyond. It is, as is pointed out in the main article, a variation on a theme. The USA sees the world in terms of opponents and allies, the latter needing to accept the Hegemon's leadership. Interactions are clothed in terminology of conflict and military campaign jargon. Winning is the prize. No-one pays the loser any heed, no-one thinks about the day after. And, as we know, nature abhors a vacuum. So Russia, for one, turned on itself.
The nations of Eastern Europe sought refuge in NATO and the EU, thereby placing these institutions under great, unacknowledged strain. The former now sees itself sharing a border with Russia and obliged to step up to defend the Estonians or the Latvians, should an impetuous general violate the "limes". The latter finding the recent additions unexpectedly ungrateful and assertive, but more importantly lacking in respect for basic and unquestioned human rights.
1991 was a wasted opportunity of epic proportions. And this is even without considering the wider geopolitical destabilization that the implosion caused. We are only just beginning to reap the storm...
No-one in power in the West paused to consider the steps that would have, indeed should have re-integrated Russia and the other nations of the Warsaw Pact into the construct of Europe and beyond. It is, as is pointed out in the main article, a variation on a theme. The USA sees the world in terms of opponents and allies, the latter needing to accept the Hegemon's leadership. Interactions are clothed in terminology of conflict and military campaign jargon. Winning is the prize. No-one pays the loser any heed, no-one thinks about the day after. And, as we know, nature abhors a vacuum. So Russia, for one, turned on itself.
The nations of Eastern Europe sought refuge in NATO and the EU, thereby placing these institutions under great, unacknowledged strain. The former now sees itself sharing a border with Russia and obliged to step up to defend the Estonians or the Latvians, should an impetuous general violate the "limes". The latter finding the recent additions unexpectedly ungrateful and assertive, but more importantly lacking in respect for basic and unquestioned human rights.
1991 was a wasted opportunity of epic proportions. And this is even without considering the wider geopolitical destabilization that the implosion caused. We are only just beginning to reap the storm...
5
@Rudy Flameng
Brussels, Belgium
You Euro communist fellow travelers are a joke. Silent while they murdered millions and can't wait to blame the US or the EU when the Russians turn their country into a gangster state.
Brussels, Belgium
You Euro communist fellow travelers are a joke. Silent while they murdered millions and can't wait to blame the US or the EU when the Russians turn their country into a gangster state.
2
"No-one in power in the West paused to consider the steps that would have, indeed should have re-integrated Russia and the other nations in the Warsaw Pact into the counstruct of Europe and beyond."
@Rudy Flameng
Excuse me. But WHAT are you talking about????
Russia and the other nations in the Warsaw Pact were never 'integrated' in the West to begin with.
How could they ever be re-integrated?
I know this ... I was there.
@Rudy Flameng
Excuse me. But WHAT are you talking about????
Russia and the other nations in the Warsaw Pact were never 'integrated' in the West to begin with.
How could they ever be re-integrated?
I know this ... I was there.
Who 'won' and who 'lost' the Cold War is dependent upon your own personal socioeconomic political educational European American ethnic nation state context and perspective.
The Cold War was the culmination of two world wars that centered upon European hegemony with America, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy dueling for supremacy. NATO, the EU and the EZ were and are the triumphant socioeconomic political military icons of that struggle that concealed and controlled the natural order and disorder of ethnic sectarian supremacist nationalism that makes up the base of both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Trump is also a relict of who 'won' and who 'lost' the American Civil War.
White Europeans and Americans are an aging shrinking demographic with below replacement level birthrates and shortening decreasing life expectancies due to poor physical and mental health practices related to alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse that lead to depression and suicide.
The Cold War was the culmination of two world wars that centered upon European hegemony with America, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy dueling for supremacy. NATO, the EU and the EZ were and are the triumphant socioeconomic political military icons of that struggle that concealed and controlled the natural order and disorder of ethnic sectarian supremacist nationalism that makes up the base of both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Trump is also a relict of who 'won' and who 'lost' the American Civil War.
White Europeans and Americans are an aging shrinking demographic with below replacement level birthrates and shortening decreasing life expectancies due to poor physical and mental health practices related to alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse that lead to depression and suicide.
1
We (the US) were fools not to follow up on all of the consequences of the "fall" of the Soviet Union. Our leadership is to blame for this failure to capitalize on the situation.
1
I should have said LACK of leadership, and lack of creative thinking. "What's the worst thing that could happen?"
US GDP $19 trillion
Russian GDP $2.7 trillion
Russian GDP $2.7 trillion
2
(Malnutrition and alcoholism shortened the average life span for a Russian man from nearly 65 in 1987 to less than 58 in 1994) This is complete nonsense, there are in Russia and most of the people living now who are far beyond eighty, but the fact that someone died at 55 is not statistics, but propaganda.
Do you understand the meaning of "average"? If the fact that someone died aged 55 is propaganda, then so is someone dying at 107.
2
This was an excellent article. But our competition with the USSR has gotten us into problems that did not crop up until much later.
Look at our efforts to stop the USSR from seizing Afghanistan. Remember how we sent Stinger Missiles to the Mujahadeen in Pakistan? Well the blowback from that CIA adventure gave us 9/11 and out own war in Afghanistan (16 years and counting). It would have been so much better if we had let the Soviets do whatever they had planned in Afghanistan.
What really hurt us with a sense to triumphalism when the USSR end. While we hailed Boris Yeltsin, he was really not interested in Democracy but rather defeating Gorbachev. We never really understood Boris the man. He was a towering figure but he was not a "democrat" and he had a severe drinking problem which led him to agree to things which were really not in Russia's best interest.
The Neocons who rose to power in the wake of the end of the USSR really made matter much worse-especially since they became embedded in the State Department, DOD, and Think Tanks. We are still suffering the after effects of the Neocons today and living with the after effects of their influence which have brought us into conflict with Russia today.
It was the neocons tho promoted the concept of Regime Change and we are still living with the after effects of this bad policy today.
Look at our efforts to stop the USSR from seizing Afghanistan. Remember how we sent Stinger Missiles to the Mujahadeen in Pakistan? Well the blowback from that CIA adventure gave us 9/11 and out own war in Afghanistan (16 years and counting). It would have been so much better if we had let the Soviets do whatever they had planned in Afghanistan.
What really hurt us with a sense to triumphalism when the USSR end. While we hailed Boris Yeltsin, he was really not interested in Democracy but rather defeating Gorbachev. We never really understood Boris the man. He was a towering figure but he was not a "democrat" and he had a severe drinking problem which led him to agree to things which were really not in Russia's best interest.
The Neocons who rose to power in the wake of the end of the USSR really made matter much worse-especially since they became embedded in the State Department, DOD, and Think Tanks. We are still suffering the after effects of the Neocons today and living with the after effects of their influence which have brought us into conflict with Russia today.
It was the neocons tho promoted the concept of Regime Change and we are still living with the after effects of this bad policy today.
4
The Cold War obviously isn't over. In 1992, Wolfowitz wrote a new doctrine for the US foreign policy, stating that Russia would still remain the main enemy because it's the heir of the USSR. The document's still classified, but some passages were leaked by the NYT itself, at 8 march 1992.
History isn't a straight line. It's a process of trial and error, of conflict of class interests, of continuity and revolutions. You can't charge History with a bill that's not issued yet.
Capitalism also failed many times in many places before it was finally successful in 18th Century Britain. It failed in Portugal and Spain; before that it failed in medieval China. It probably failed in some other places in Western Europe between the 16th and the 18th Centuries. But it finally prevailed against feudalism -- which, apparently, had achieved a decisive victory in Waterloo -- in Britain, a small and unimportant nation, in the poorest Continent at the time (i.e. Europe), against all the odds.
The same will probably be true for communism (socialism is, theoretically, the transition period between capitalism and communism, so it's not a system per se). The USSR was very important for human History because it was the first experiment of a proletarian State, even though it never achieved the stage of communism (which is only possible if the whole world is unified either way, so it was not a surprise). It showed capitalism was not the end game of humanity, that another, better world is possible.
History isn't a straight line. It's a process of trial and error, of conflict of class interests, of continuity and revolutions. You can't charge History with a bill that's not issued yet.
Capitalism also failed many times in many places before it was finally successful in 18th Century Britain. It failed in Portugal and Spain; before that it failed in medieval China. It probably failed in some other places in Western Europe between the 16th and the 18th Centuries. But it finally prevailed against feudalism -- which, apparently, had achieved a decisive victory in Waterloo -- in Britain, a small and unimportant nation, in the poorest Continent at the time (i.e. Europe), against all the odds.
The same will probably be true for communism (socialism is, theoretically, the transition period between capitalism and communism, so it's not a system per se). The USSR was very important for human History because it was the first experiment of a proletarian State, even though it never achieved the stage of communism (which is only possible if the whole world is unified either way, so it was not a surprise). It showed capitalism was not the end game of humanity, that another, better world is possible.
VK
São Paulo
No socialism isn't the transition period, it is technically communism. See dictionary definition. Communism was the most disastrous experiment in history that killed tens of millions and reduced to destitution hundreds of millions more. Sorry buddy but bourgeois capitalism with all its faults is the only economic system capable of producing at affordable cost the multitude of goods and services that modern mass societies need and desire.
São Paulo
No socialism isn't the transition period, it is technically communism. See dictionary definition. Communism was the most disastrous experiment in history that killed tens of millions and reduced to destitution hundreds of millions more. Sorry buddy but bourgeois capitalism with all its faults is the only economic system capable of producing at affordable cost the multitude of goods and services that modern mass societies need and desire.
2
Triumphalism, a variety of Hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence) is always an invitation to get "victory" wrong, to milk "victory" as for short-term political gain, almost inevitably at great long-term cost.
A "defeated" Russia was always going to cost us at least as much as would have a defeated and neglected Germany (as it did when we neglected Germany after WWI) and a defeated and neglected Japan, after WWII. Fortunately for us, we had people of vision and conviction like General George Marshall, who strongly advocated for the Marshall Plan, which greatly helped rebuild Germany, Japan, and much of Europe.
Unfortunately, we did not have visionary people in 1989, at the fall of the Soviet Union, nor people who knew or understood the history of the 20th Century.
And how ironic that the party that celebrated the "triumph" of Reagan against the Soviet Union now sees the rise of a hostile and devious Russia as not worth bothering about. Ironic is today's euphemism for criminal and treasonous. What would we have done with todays GOP leadership in the years between 1917 and 1989, particularly in the early 1950s?
A "defeated" Russia was always going to cost us at least as much as would have a defeated and neglected Germany (as it did when we neglected Germany after WWI) and a defeated and neglected Japan, after WWII. Fortunately for us, we had people of vision and conviction like General George Marshall, who strongly advocated for the Marshall Plan, which greatly helped rebuild Germany, Japan, and much of Europe.
Unfortunately, we did not have visionary people in 1989, at the fall of the Soviet Union, nor people who knew or understood the history of the 20th Century.
And how ironic that the party that celebrated the "triumph" of Reagan against the Soviet Union now sees the rise of a hostile and devious Russia as not worth bothering about. Ironic is today's euphemism for criminal and treasonous. What would we have done with todays GOP leadership in the years between 1917 and 1989, particularly in the early 1950s?
2
@Robert Henry Eller
Portland, Oregon
Have you EVER read a history book? Far from neglecting Japan the US installed a Viceroy who ran the country for five years and put it back on its feat.
The rise of hostile Russia. It's a gangster state and economic basket case with GDP barely larger than Spain.
Portland, Oregon
Have you EVER read a history book? Far from neglecting Japan the US installed a Viceroy who ran the country for five years and put it back on its feat.
The rise of hostile Russia. It's a gangster state and economic basket case with GDP barely larger than Spain.
3
Did you ever read my comment? I specifically point out that the Marshall Plan helped restore Germany and Japan.
You're right, Russia is a gangster state and economic basket case. But it didn't necessarily have to be. We certainly did not make a good faith effort to help when we had the chance. And like it or not, we owe the Russian people a great deal. Or have you not read any history of what Russians did, and what Russians sacrificed, in WWII. The war could have turned out very differently if the Russians had not absorbed so much of Hitler's war effort.
I'd back off if I were you accusing people of being historically challenged. I don't think you have the credentials. And if you do have the credentials, you're simply a fraud.
You're right, Russia is a gangster state and economic basket case. But it didn't necessarily have to be. We certainly did not make a good faith effort to help when we had the chance. And like it or not, we owe the Russian people a great deal. Or have you not read any history of what Russians did, and what Russians sacrificed, in WWII. The war could have turned out very differently if the Russians had not absorbed so much of Hitler's war effort.
I'd back off if I were you accusing people of being historically challenged. I don't think you have the credentials. And if you do have the credentials, you're simply a fraud.
1
John in Hartford: you misread Robert Henry Eller's comment. If you reread his first sentence, you will see that he was using the subjunctive mood in it to say the opposite of what you asserted he said about our role in Japan after WWII.
A Harvard professor give us the big picture, the grand theory of post Soviet history, of "American triumphalism" and tells us how, if he had only been consulted, things would be so much better now.
It's a pretty story, but like most bedtime stories, not much grounded in the woof of reality.
It's a pretty story, but like most bedtime stories, not much grounded in the woof of reality.
Fascinating how Claudia subverts everything about the article, leaving out just one thing, i.e. leaving out one iota of factual, logical argument.
Some great points here, points that normally one doesn't hear in the neo-liberal Times. I believe that costs incurred - human, economic and social - from what seemed at the time an endless pursuit of "victory" in the Cold War, were so enormous that it set humanity back profoundly. War mongers in politics and in the military industrial complex, of course, made out handsomely. The jury is out as to when or how we will ever recover from this squandered opportunity to build a new, more equitable world, with cooperation and the respect for individual human rights being authentically adopted as worthy goals by the majority of the world's inhabitants. One very important point that may have been intentionally left out (A not unreasonable conclusion, given the otherwise acute analysis by Prof. Westad), is that US financial actors played a huge part in the disastrous selloff of Soviet Union assets to the oligarchs. For more, read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine," as well as others to understand how deeply involved US financial interests were in the virtual overnight evisceration of public Russian assets.
3
The fact is as anyone who knows anything about this will tell you is that large amounts of money in grants and loans flowed from Washington into Russia....and out again into the pockets of Yeltsin, his family and friends.
4
Would be nice if you asked Paul Kennedy to make a contribution. His work on great powers is directly applicable.
Perhaps I am being too simplistic but it seems to me that it is Putin and his oligarch cronies who enriched themselves a fabulous degree by distributing the state owned wealth of the old Soviet Union among themselves.
And, in contrast to China, they have done very little to improve the standard of living of individual Russians. The Russian economy, decades after the fall of communism, is under performing and overly dependent on exports of resources. And this in spite of their starting with a well educated population and a resource base larger than all but a handful of countries.
And, in contrast to China, they have done very little to improve the standard of living of individual Russians. The Russian economy, decades after the fall of communism, is under performing and overly dependent on exports of resources. And this in spite of their starting with a well educated population and a resource base larger than all but a handful of countries.
7
What created and reformed in Russia in the state system in the nineties under Yeltsin, it is completely on the recommendations and approval of America. And it is not necessary to issue this as a purely Russian achievements. Those reformers who were in power at that time now all live in America. Example: a former Minister of Foreign Affairs And Kozyrev or General of the KGB, Kalugin, etc.
No mention of one major factor: some people made mucho bucks out of the Cold War. Some people won many elections talking Cold War. They are still around.
4
Reading this article I couldn't help but thinking it is so exemplary of the crisis in the liberal arts today. Cleverly written arguments are all that matter, coupled with untestable claims and assertions. No doubt his fellow academics will respond with lengthy letters in the appropriate journals and all will have a good day.
"The shocks of the 1990s have given way to an uninhibited cynicism among Russians, which not only encompasses a deep distrust of their fellow citizens but also sees conspiracies against themselves everywhere, often contrary to fact and reason."
Yeah, as if we don't have people claiming vaccines cause autism, climate change is a hoax, Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation, the Trump-Russia connection is fake news...
"The shocks of the 1990s have given way to an uninhibited cynicism among Russians, which not only encompasses a deep distrust of their fellow citizens but also sees conspiracies against themselves everywhere, often contrary to fact and reason."
Yeah, as if we don't have people claiming vaccines cause autism, climate change is a hoax, Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation, the Trump-Russia connection is fake news...
11
Whataboutism.
Possibly the saddest and one time avoidable problem we now face going into the 2020's re: our foreign policy, is the increasing tension and widening divide between Russia and the USA.
Given that both Russia and America are indeed world powers that face similar challenges from the rise of radicalized Islamic groups and rogue nations, while both countries seem almost lock-step to be looking at significant adjustments in their ability to directly affect world events (as well as the challenge of maintaining strong economic influence over global markets), it would seem on the surface that our two nations once had a golden opportunity to seek and reach an accord that could strengthen both countries. Now however with the confusion, political chaos and misdirection of the Russian Hacker Scandal this opportunity to begin a reset of our two nations relations may have been lost.
Lets just hope and pray that this opportunity ,perhaps under a new Administration not burdened with its perceived involvement with backdoor deals with Russian leadership, can eventually reemerge; and like Nixon's trip to Red China, help reset our two nations relations along a much more mutually beneficial and peaceful path.
Given that both Russia and America are indeed world powers that face similar challenges from the rise of radicalized Islamic groups and rogue nations, while both countries seem almost lock-step to be looking at significant adjustments in their ability to directly affect world events (as well as the challenge of maintaining strong economic influence over global markets), it would seem on the surface that our two nations once had a golden opportunity to seek and reach an accord that could strengthen both countries. Now however with the confusion, political chaos and misdirection of the Russian Hacker Scandal this opportunity to begin a reset of our two nations relations may have been lost.
Lets just hope and pray that this opportunity ,perhaps under a new Administration not burdened with its perceived involvement with backdoor deals with Russian leadership, can eventually reemerge; and like Nixon's trip to Red China, help reset our two nations relations along a much more mutually beneficial and peaceful path.
5
The old reds are now the new greens.
1
No offense. But you really haven't a clue of what you're talking about.
What does that even mean? And what's it got to do with this op-ed?
Delusion is not merely confined to American, but could be discerned in West.
Westerners imbibed in Aristotelian logic, the rational principles have been so basic a way of thinking that it is completely for granted as simple necessities of thought.
This has been basically an hurdle for the vast majority of Westerners comprehending Indian philosophy. Despite its enormous antiquity, the way the ancient Sanskrit texts describe the universe amazingly contemporary.
Swami Kriyananda writing "What India Can Teach Us"
"The ancient texts tell of a universe billions of years old, and at the same time infinitely vast. They speak of our earth as only one among countless millions of planets. They measure the history of mankind in the millions of years. How different, their view, from the narrow vistas of time and space that were accepted in the West until only decades ago!
The discovery in our times that light is both a particle and a wave is bewildering to the Western mind. Reason tells us that light ought to be clearly either one thing or the other. For the Indian no such bewilderment exists. He accepts the fact that contradictions inherent in the universe, the very foundation of which is the law of duality.
Science has proved that all physical objects, in appearance so infinitely diverse, are in fact only varied manifestations of formless energy... Long ago, the rishis of India wrote of this truth in their Vedas, the source books of Indian civilization".
Westerners imbibed in Aristotelian logic, the rational principles have been so basic a way of thinking that it is completely for granted as simple necessities of thought.
This has been basically an hurdle for the vast majority of Westerners comprehending Indian philosophy. Despite its enormous antiquity, the way the ancient Sanskrit texts describe the universe amazingly contemporary.
Swami Kriyananda writing "What India Can Teach Us"
"The ancient texts tell of a universe billions of years old, and at the same time infinitely vast. They speak of our earth as only one among countless millions of planets. They measure the history of mankind in the millions of years. How different, their view, from the narrow vistas of time and space that were accepted in the West until only decades ago!
The discovery in our times that light is both a particle and a wave is bewildering to the Western mind. Reason tells us that light ought to be clearly either one thing or the other. For the Indian no such bewilderment exists. He accepts the fact that contradictions inherent in the universe, the very foundation of which is the law of duality.
Science has proved that all physical objects, in appearance so infinitely diverse, are in fact only varied manifestations of formless energy... Long ago, the rishis of India wrote of this truth in their Vedas, the source books of Indian civilization".
3
With such insights into the structure of the universe, were physics textbooks, nuclear reactors, electronics etc not commonplace in India thousands of years ago?
Or was it all just made-up stories with no evidence, rigour or fruit?
Or was it all just made-up stories with no evidence, rigour or fruit?
6
The rivalry between China and the US for primacy on the Asian landmass is over. China won. The slow downsizing of resources committed to futile wars in the Greater Middle East will be the beginning of the Long Retreat by the US. The US will continue its alliances with the market economies of Europe and the Far East, but the Chinese One Belt-One Road projects, increased trade, and pervasive commercial presence will cement Chinese influence from China west through Central Asia to Europe, across the Middle East, and through much of Africa. China will be the most important external economic factor to Latin America.
Russia will be almost irrelevant. It is being surrounded by Chinese infrastructure and investment power.
The increase in Chinese power and influence over the next decade or two is going to overthrow lots of establishment thinking in the US and roil public beliefs in American exceptionalism as the consequences of American overreach come home to roost.
Russia will be almost irrelevant. It is being surrounded by Chinese infrastructure and investment power.
The increase in Chinese power and influence over the next decade or two is going to overthrow lots of establishment thinking in the US and roil public beliefs in American exceptionalism as the consequences of American overreach come home to roost.
8
One belt one road is a pipe dream. Driving products through the boonies of western China, then through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran, and then to Turkey and Greece? The US military wouldn't even try it because by the time the product gets to its destination, the transportation costs are ten times higher than the product's actual value. Just supplying fuel to a base in Afghanistan costs a fortune, and that doesn't require shipment through most of the Stans, Iran, Turkey, and Western China. And of course there will be bribes paid along the entire route, and it means each country along the route can cut the route completely.
If China wants to trade directly to Europe without using sea lanes, they'd be better off doing it with Boeings.
If China wants to trade directly to Europe without using sea lanes, they'd be better off doing it with Boeings.
1
Very good article, but I finished it with the feeling that it stopped short of proposing a view of what kind of world we will make in the next several decades. Surely we could look back to the age of global expansion in the seventeenth century or even to earlier times of intense (albeit slower) trade overland and in coastal waters to find examples of internal and external politics that we may see re-merge once the distorting factor of the (non-religious) ideological wars of the last century is taken out of the equation. History does not repeat itself, but it does provide examples of what works under certain conditions and what kinds of things lead to conflict and failure.
Although it can be difficult and often trying to appreciate at a time when we may speak with exasperation of blue states/red states and other divides, it is one of America’s strengths that there are multiple American dreams, something which other cultures, as great as they may be, do not offer their citizens. I don’t know whether this is the tendency of world progress—not likely—but it means that so long as we stay true to that, no other nation can surpass us. We don’t just tolerate one other; we need one another.
2
Always the Russians.
There were 15 other nations in USSR. What are their sentiments on this?
Some of these authors, who claim the high moral ground and criticize America’s behavior after the Cold War, act as if smaller nations don’t exist. Well they do and they are former Soviets too.
Russia was given preferential treatment after the Cold War. They should have been treated like a defeated nation.
Russia was given trillions in help; they were allowed keep the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal (screw you smaller Soviet nations); only they inherited the Soviet veto at the United Nations (instead of sharing it on a rotation-basis system).
The Soviet Union was supposedly about international brotherhood, but you had Russian lordship over other nations. Far from imposing arrogantly over Russia, US and the West helped emphasize Russian undeserved supremacy.
There were 15 other nations in USSR. What are their sentiments on this?
Some of these authors, who claim the high moral ground and criticize America’s behavior after the Cold War, act as if smaller nations don’t exist. Well they do and they are former Soviets too.
Russia was given preferential treatment after the Cold War. They should have been treated like a defeated nation.
Russia was given trillions in help; they were allowed keep the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal (screw you smaller Soviet nations); only they inherited the Soviet veto at the United Nations (instead of sharing it on a rotation-basis system).
The Soviet Union was supposedly about international brotherhood, but you had Russian lordship over other nations. Far from imposing arrogantly over Russia, US and the West helped emphasize Russian undeserved supremacy.
6
The end of the cold war coincided with the election of 3 US presidents who were political ¨simpletons¨ (Reagan, Clinton and Bush II). Reagan started a new phase of unregulated financial capitalism. Clinton finished the job. Then Bush II started catastrophic unwinnable wars. Europe committed radical suicide in the first half of the 20th century (2 World Wars and political totalitarianism). The US was the only winner. Now, the US is committing suicide by a thousand war cuts (Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) and by espousing a disastrous form of “laissez faire” capitalism. The current president's election is clearly linked to these past disasters. Probably, he will weaken America even more. Will Fascism be next? Will the US start a catastrophic WWIII? What a waste! The great statesmen who put together the American Century in the late 1940’s must be turning in their graves.
18
Obama wasn't exactly an experienced, insightful global strategist.
Also, the end of the Cold War did not coincided with Bush II. He took office a decade after.
I agree that it is wise to exclude Bush I from your list.
Also, the end of the Cold War did not coincided with Bush II. He took office a decade after.
I agree that it is wise to exclude Bush I from your list.
3
We bankrupted them, before they bankrupted US. Barely. That's what happens, when an obscenely large proportion of a Country's wealth is spent on the Military. Always and forever. Enough.
8
Traveling around the world, it's not too hard to figure out why other nations, big and small, hate America, while at the same time the majority of their populations would move here in a heartbeat if they could. When allowed, people are people the world over. It's the single person leaderships of those nations that is the great flaw; often using other nations as enemies solely to bolster their egos and ratings at home. Every leader needs an enemy. (Trump has deliberately made enemies aplenty, though mostly at home! Although if push came to shove, he'd pick hard on that NK kid again.) America will always be the kicking stool so long as it reigns successful. That's just the nature of the world since time began. Magnanimity in that success is the tricky part, because many of those autocratic leaders think it to be a sign of weakness, and thus abused. For years America used the carrot and the stick approach. But since Iraq, the stick has been seen to be weak, almost impotent, hence there is no stick anymore. There's a moral in there somewhere that all those war-hungry neo-cons forgot.
2
Why the hatred? Jealousy.... We have done things they can only dream of...
1
Most of these autocratic leaders were put in place by the US after the US overthrew their democratically elected governments. The US promotes democracy so long as the nations of the world elect governments that can be controlled by the US, privatize their natural resources to the bennefit of American corporations or just allow US Multi National Corporations to walk in and steal their resources. etc. The world, especially the Western World has been designed by and dictated to by the US and Capitalism. It is largely unworkable and drowing in debt. Capitalism has been no more bennefit to the world than was communism. To a small sliver at the top of the food chain yes it has been fantastic, to the rest not so much.
It begs the question that if democracy and capitalism are so great how come it can only be exported at the end of the barrell of a gun, bribery, corruption of governments, the dropping of bombs and invasions and occupations of it´s target countries. Why does the Capitalist System require so many wars and the massacre of so many innocent people?
It begs the question that if democracy and capitalism are so great how come it can only be exported at the end of the barrell of a gun, bribery, corruption of governments, the dropping of bombs and invasions and occupations of it´s target countries. Why does the Capitalist System require so many wars and the massacre of so many innocent people?
I read the fine article with a passionate interest.
I was particularly stuck by the observation that "most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and if the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States".
Very true indeed that the Americans suffers from the persisting blindness of superiority continues to believe that all should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice. Rest of the world are but temporarily prevented from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction.
But unfortunately it's a great mistake due to its incomprehension of the essence of other countries outside US, measuring them all American yardstick. The real picture of our world has little resemblance to all this.
This blinding superiority, not only of Americans but rest of the West, has tragic consequences we are witnessing in many present trouble spots including ISIS phenomenon and Islamic terror.
I was particularly stuck by the observation that "most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and if the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States".
Very true indeed that the Americans suffers from the persisting blindness of superiority continues to believe that all should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice. Rest of the world are but temporarily prevented from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction.
But unfortunately it's a great mistake due to its incomprehension of the essence of other countries outside US, measuring them all American yardstick. The real picture of our world has little resemblance to all this.
This blinding superiority, not only of Americans but rest of the West, has tragic consequences we are witnessing in many present trouble spots including ISIS phenomenon and Islamic terror.
4
Bo offense. But in the scope of all things, these days, ISIS and Islamic terror has far more tragic consequences.
Wisdom at last!Happy reading this!
1
It is not about Communism or Democracy. The Wizard behind the curtain is Money and Power. The fact that World Banks and Corporations control Governments for there own bottom line with control and power.
2
The cold war began when the comunists took over the Russian Empire in 1918,remember american,english ane japanese involvement supporting the whites,the USA did not recognize the Soviet Union until 1933.The Soviets faced western containment from their beginning until their end.Today the average russian lives better than soviet times,millions vacation abroad,millions buy cars every year and the average american living standard is declining.I ask you whom win and who losed the cold war?
1
One implication of this article is that African and Muslim Middle Eastern nations are essentially helpless, and thus America and Russia are totally responsible for their current travails, and only they can help these nations climb out of their misery.
Afghanistan, for example, is racked by tribalism, extreme, destructive Islamic customs, and ensuing corruption. The people of that nation have had hundreds of years to improve their lot.
It appears that about 80% of African and Middle Eastern nations have constant civil wars (sorry to say). The blame, in my opinion, lies with the people of those nations, not with historic occupations.
It is too easy to blame imperialism and colonialism (forever, really?). Using the logic of those who excuse many nations' bad behavior, and to stretch the point a bit, Great Britain should be a mess today, because, like Africa, it was once colonized by the Romans.
In most cases, the primary responsibility for a nation's well-being lies with its people and current rulers.
To compare the moral righteousness of the USA with the USSR post-WW2 is both silly and disingenuous, so much so that one can hardly begin to argue the point. Maybe start by comparing emigration directions.
Afghanistan, for example, is racked by tribalism, extreme, destructive Islamic customs, and ensuing corruption. The people of that nation have had hundreds of years to improve their lot.
It appears that about 80% of African and Middle Eastern nations have constant civil wars (sorry to say). The blame, in my opinion, lies with the people of those nations, not with historic occupations.
It is too easy to blame imperialism and colonialism (forever, really?). Using the logic of those who excuse many nations' bad behavior, and to stretch the point a bit, Great Britain should be a mess today, because, like Africa, it was once colonized by the Romans.
In most cases, the primary responsibility for a nation's well-being lies with its people and current rulers.
To compare the moral righteousness of the USA with the USSR post-WW2 is both silly and disingenuous, so much so that one can hardly begin to argue the point. Maybe start by comparing emigration directions.
3
You raise a couple of examples that suggest why we only get so far treating history as some kind of morality play. Afghanistan is divided into many regions by rugged mountains, making it relatively difficult to unite all the local groups and also relatively easy to isolate and ignore troublesome relatives and allies until one is ready to annihilate them. The Middle East presents fewer natural defense barriers, encouraging more constant struggles for total hegemony and the expectation that one can be attacked from any direction. I'm probably oversimplifying here, but the point is that local conditions may be expected to create different kinds of pressures and strengths, and that the poisonous legacies of colonialism, US hegemony, and communism are not the only predictors of national behavior.
Much of the world, including Africa and Latin America were caught in the crossfire of the Cold War. It's not "blaming" colonialism and the Cold War for all their ills to call attention to their contribution to the current state of things.
1
For an insightful perspective on the impact of the end of the Cold War on U.S. political life which culminated in the election of Donald Trump, see:
Slouching towards Mar-A-Lago by Andrew Bacevich.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/slouching-toward-mar-a-l...
“Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s — plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that ‘revolution,’ gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.”
"In truth, influential American institutions — investment banks and multinational corporations, churches and universities, big city newspapers and TV networks, the bloated national security apparatus and both major political parties — have found reason aplenty to endorse a system that elevates the president to the status of demigod. By and large, it’s been good for business, whatever that business happens to be."
Slouching towards Mar-A-Lago by Andrew Bacevich.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/slouching-toward-mar-a-l...
“Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s — plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that ‘revolution,’ gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.”
"In truth, influential American institutions — investment banks and multinational corporations, churches and universities, big city newspapers and TV networks, the bloated national security apparatus and both major political parties — have found reason aplenty to endorse a system that elevates the president to the status of demigod. By and large, it’s been good for business, whatever that business happens to be."
3
“If the United States won the Cold War but failed to capitalize on it, then the Soviet Union, or rather Russia, lost it, and lost it big. The collapse left Russians feeling déclassé and usurped. One day they had been the elite nation in a superpower union of republics. The next, they had neither purpose nor position. Materially, things were bad, too. Old people did not get their pensions. Some starved to death. Malnutrition and alcoholism shortened the average life span for a Russian man from nearly 65 in 1987 to less than 58 in 1994.” This brilliant paragraph sums up the psyche and material conditions of the current USA, for which the author attempts to blame Bill Clinton. Nonsense-- most of us recall the Clinton years as the last time we were GREAT. Had that road continued with 8 years of Gore, then Obama would not have inherited an epic mess and could have had a more successful 8 years. We certainly would not now find ourselves with a wanna be fascist autocrat as our semi-president, elected by a fluke. Nope, our mess falls on GW and his merry band of neo-cons and their finely honed propaganda machine.
8
"All this happened while the West applauded Boris Yeltsin’s economic reforms."
Well, that was the problem. Post-Soviet Russia may have received our applause Odd but it was China that swallowed up ALL western FDI into developing economies (on a net basis) over any time span you may care to choose from 1985 onward.
China wasn't just "a major beneficiary of the end of the Cold war" it was THE winner of the Cold War hands down!
Well, that was the problem. Post-Soviet Russia may have received our applause Odd but it was China that swallowed up ALL western FDI into developing economies (on a net basis) over any time span you may care to choose from 1985 onward.
China wasn't just "a major beneficiary of the end of the Cold war" it was THE winner of the Cold War hands down!
1
The whole concept of Make America Great Again shows the allure of the Cold War. We are still being led by Cold Warriors who see the world as a zero sum game of conquest.
47
Gee, I don't know, Ran: big-name Trumpers loathe globalism; they are loud and proud nationalists. That's hardly a game of world conquest, is it? Am I missing something here?
Jim, here's my take on it. They're not in favor of world conquest, but they still want to believe there's some special virtue to America (American Exceptionalism) that means we don't have to learn from other countries. The "economic nationalism" of Bannon and Breitbart is about giving the "winners" (white America and Israel) the right to thumb their noses at the "losers" (Muslims, Hispanics, and blacks). Of course with their belief in American Exceptionalism, they want to believe that whites who lost their factory and mining jobs are still "winners." If we had just protected our own industries, those honest, hard working people would still have good jobs.
This is a greatly simplified accounting of what was an enormously complex process but one that (outside of events in the old Yugoslavia which paradoxically was the least communistic state) happened very quickly and surprisingly bloodlessly. Think about it. The world's second superpower disappeared off the map in the space of two years and with it went not just the satellite states they had held in servitude since the late 40's but also large parts of the Russian body politic in central Asia, along the Baltic and in South central Europe.
No one is disputing the foreign policy errors made by the Bush administration in the 00's but in fact during the 90's the US made considerable efforts to integrate Russia into the global trading and diplomatic system. It is hardly the fault of the US or the EU that they from the traditional Russian faults of suspicion, hubris and inferiority lapsed into the repressive, gangster kleptocracy they have become. Even now after 25 years of "freedom" their economy is scarcely larger than that of Spain in nominal terms despite their abundant resources, large population and physical size. For all Putin's bluster and mendacity Russia remains "Upper Volta with missiles" in Helmut Schmidt phrase.
No one is disputing the foreign policy errors made by the Bush administration in the 00's but in fact during the 90's the US made considerable efforts to integrate Russia into the global trading and diplomatic system. It is hardly the fault of the US or the EU that they from the traditional Russian faults of suspicion, hubris and inferiority lapsed into the repressive, gangster kleptocracy they have become. Even now after 25 years of "freedom" their economy is scarcely larger than that of Spain in nominal terms despite their abundant resources, large population and physical size. For all Putin's bluster and mendacity Russia remains "Upper Volta with missiles" in Helmut Schmidt phrase.
4
This is an excellent article encapsulating the history, the miss-opportunities to reshape the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's also sobering that the US foreign policy establishment is beret of grand ideas and strategies. It has been and still is the domain of reactionary, short term tactical moves, and stale thinking burdened by Cold War mentality.
Despite the military misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and else where in Africa and despite the shortsighted expansion of Nato, the US foreign policies are still essentially on the same path that has led to the many challenges, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, facing the US and its Western alliance today. The US is still consumed and distracted by terrorism without an overarching strategy arrest its diminishing global influence. In hindsight, the US' miscalculations under Bush, Clinton and Bush W. are looming larger.
Despite the military misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and else where in Africa and despite the shortsighted expansion of Nato, the US foreign policies are still essentially on the same path that has led to the many challenges, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, facing the US and its Western alliance today. The US is still consumed and distracted by terrorism without an overarching strategy arrest its diminishing global influence. In hindsight, the US' miscalculations under Bush, Clinton and Bush W. are looming larger.
3
But most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and if the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States.
****
And this is the mentality, in the extreme, that sent white male supremists to Charlottesville.
****
And this is the mentality, in the extreme, that sent white male supremists to Charlottesville.
6
No, it's not. There is nothing particularly American in the impulses behind the most extreme marchers. You see this behavior in many nations, especially when the peasants feel trod upon and their way of life threatened and their plight ignored by their own elites.
Also, not all of the alt-right, KKK, and Nazi marchers were male.
Also, not all of the alt-right, KKK, and Nazi marchers were male.
I was stationed in Germany as a Photographer based in Stuttgart starting in 1983. As a consequence of work, I travelled more than many American troops and spent more than a little time "on the economy" -staying in German Guest Houses & Hotels.
What I found out was that a significant portion of the German people thought the Cold War was essentially done, over and a relic. When we turned on our TVs to see American TV on AFN, the Cold War was a Front & Center foreboding challenge to America and our allies. The same was true of the American magazines, newspapers and such. It was obvious there was a significant divide between the perceptions of well informed Germans and Americans taking what they were told in the media by politicians, pundits, journalists and "experts".
Having seen that and knowing that the Warsaw Pact collapsed just a few years later has made me skeptical of people in the media and government pointing at other nations and shouting enemy or existential threat. Seeing how many Americans still think Reagan's buildup won the Cold War makes me skeptical of prevailing popular opinion unless there is strong evidence to support it.
The Soviet Union was not Socialist or Communist in the conventional sense. It was a dictatorship with a command economy run by an privileged overclass. The same is true of the Satellites of Eastern Europe. What happened and what is commonly understood are very different.
We cannot understand the present until we come clean on the past.
What I found out was that a significant portion of the German people thought the Cold War was essentially done, over and a relic. When we turned on our TVs to see American TV on AFN, the Cold War was a Front & Center foreboding challenge to America and our allies. The same was true of the American magazines, newspapers and such. It was obvious there was a significant divide between the perceptions of well informed Germans and Americans taking what they were told in the media by politicians, pundits, journalists and "experts".
Having seen that and knowing that the Warsaw Pact collapsed just a few years later has made me skeptical of people in the media and government pointing at other nations and shouting enemy or existential threat. Seeing how many Americans still think Reagan's buildup won the Cold War makes me skeptical of prevailing popular opinion unless there is strong evidence to support it.
The Soviet Union was not Socialist or Communist in the conventional sense. It was a dictatorship with a command economy run by an privileged overclass. The same is true of the Satellites of Eastern Europe. What happened and what is commonly understood are very different.
We cannot understand the present until we come clean on the past.
5
Re: "The Soviet Union was not Socialist or Communist in the conventional sense." Correct, it was communist in PRACTICE. In other words, it reflects the tendency of communist regimes to present as brutal dictatorships. This has been the experience over and over again everywhere it has been "tried" (e.g. forced onto the populace).
1
Russia and the USA are mirror-image kleptocracies.
In Russia, the government (in the person of Putin) chooses the billionaires.
In the United Stats, the billionaires choose the government.
In both cases, the private jet-owners horde the wealth and the rest of us fight each other for pennies.
In Russia, the government (in the person of Putin) chooses the billionaires.
In the United Stats, the billionaires choose the government.
In both cases, the private jet-owners horde the wealth and the rest of us fight each other for pennies.
16
The "victory" was a false positive. A false lesson.
Marxist-Leninism failed. At the very same time, "socialism" was a resounding success against its challenge in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and in slightly different ways in West Germany and the Netherlands.
Communism collapsed. US style capitalism staggered on longer, but it did not "win." It just did not lose.
The US then took that to be a victory, and for an extreme version of its system called things like neo-liberalism. The wealthy in the US tried to cash in on the victory, cash in world wide.
But they had not won, just not lost. Their efforts failed to translate into success anywhere. They failed in re-making Russia. They failed in re-making Iraq. That was not just because those places could not succeed, it was because neo-liberalism could not succeed.
Now they are doing it to us, and we are going down too.
Marxist-Leninism failed. At the very same time, "socialism" was a resounding success against its challenge in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and in slightly different ways in West Germany and the Netherlands.
Communism collapsed. US style capitalism staggered on longer, but it did not "win." It just did not lose.
The US then took that to be a victory, and for an extreme version of its system called things like neo-liberalism. The wealthy in the US tried to cash in on the victory, cash in world wide.
But they had not won, just not lost. Their efforts failed to translate into success anywhere. They failed in re-making Russia. They failed in re-making Iraq. That was not just because those places could not succeed, it was because neo-liberalism could not succeed.
Now they are doing it to us, and we are going down too.
9
The "Socialism" that succeeded was in fact Democratic Socialism which is political and value pluralism with what you call neo liberal open markets. This is universal political model in the developed world
And of course the US won. And globalized neo liberalism is in fact the prevailing economic model wit local variations in the entire developed world from the US to Denmark.
And of course the US won. And globalized neo liberalism is in fact the prevailing economic model wit local variations in the entire developed world from the US to Denmark.
3
Democratic Socialism has also very strong Government component that ensures well-being of all citizens. That component is very small in the US. So, it is difficult to see how Democratic Socialism could be 'win' for the US.
4
@yulia
MO
Well of course it does. That is why Democratic Socialism is sometimes called Welfare Capitalism.
And no it isn't a very small component in the US. The US has essentially the same safety net of social programs like retirement insurance (notably more generous than some incidentally); unemployment insurance; subsidized health insurance which covers about 290 million of its citizens; worker's compensation; etc. etc. Then there is a not dissimilar network of government agencies to protect the environment; regulate the financial industry; etc. etc. We're just about to throw tens of billions of dollars at TX and LA to deal with Harvey.
Sorry to disabuse you but the US is not some version of Dickens' Hard Times.
Sorry to disa
MO
Well of course it does. That is why Democratic Socialism is sometimes called Welfare Capitalism.
And no it isn't a very small component in the US. The US has essentially the same safety net of social programs like retirement insurance (notably more generous than some incidentally); unemployment insurance; subsidized health insurance which covers about 290 million of its citizens; worker's compensation; etc. etc. Then there is a not dissimilar network of government agencies to protect the environment; regulate the financial industry; etc. etc. We're just about to throw tens of billions of dollars at TX and LA to deal with Harvey.
Sorry to disabuse you but the US is not some version of Dickens' Hard Times.
Sorry to disa
2
What happen to Russia was that the political system collapsed but it didn't take the bureaucracy down with it. That lived on an transformed into the oligarchy of the 90's because they knew where the assets were and how to take them.
4
It's not as if there was no government at all. So exaxtly how were those national assets turned into (presumably legal?) private wealth?
For those who ponder the mistakes of governments particularly our own, I recommend a visit to the late Barbara Tuchman's book, "The March of Folly". In particular, her Epilogue in this book is titled "A Lantern on the Stern" and it is most instructive. While she could not have looked forward to our folly in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, you will find that she anticipated that such folly seems inevitable based on history and the nature of humans who wield power.
4
"In retrospect, the economic transition to capitalism was a catastrophe for most Russians. "
Has capitalism been any less catastrophic for the United States and the Western World in general? Because of capitalism and the market based economies some 2 billion people do not have enough to eat, even though the world produces enough food for double it´s population. And the reason those two billion people are starving? Because it is not profitable to feed them.
And just look at the US, the home of unbridled market forces and capitalism where some forty five million people do not get enough to eat, can´t afford decent housing, and can´t afford decent medical care.
Yes communism did not pan out, but mostly because the USSR was threatened with war by the US and the UK before even the end of the Second World War. In fact the US military had planned to drop 35 atom bombs on Russia at the end of the Second World War because at that time the Russians did not have the atom bomb. So the USSR having to rebuild it´s devasted countries on it´s own and having to spend most of it´s treasure on the military to fend off an attack but the USA and the UK, was the primary reason that it´s economy failed. it was not because the system was so bad, it was because so much of it´s economy had to be used just to defend itself.
Has capitalism been any less catastrophic for the United States and the Western World in general? Because of capitalism and the market based economies some 2 billion people do not have enough to eat, even though the world produces enough food for double it´s population. And the reason those two billion people are starving? Because it is not profitable to feed them.
And just look at the US, the home of unbridled market forces and capitalism where some forty five million people do not get enough to eat, can´t afford decent housing, and can´t afford decent medical care.
Yes communism did not pan out, but mostly because the USSR was threatened with war by the US and the UK before even the end of the Second World War. In fact the US military had planned to drop 35 atom bombs on Russia at the end of the Second World War because at that time the Russians did not have the atom bomb. So the USSR having to rebuild it´s devasted countries on it´s own and having to spend most of it´s treasure on the military to fend off an attack but the USA and the UK, was the primary reason that it´s economy failed. it was not because the system was so bad, it was because so much of it´s economy had to be used just to defend itself.
9
While I fully subscribe to the analysis of Mr. Westad, I'd like to point out two omissions:
1.) Europe/The European Union, The US also has not really understood that it has fallen behind the EU in so many ways as the EU these days, despite the issues with "refugees" from other countries and the fact that the EU is neither a military nor a political powerhouse. The EU simply lives the essence of the US dream, that is the US at the height of the cold war. The EU today is trying, and failing at that, to ignore the political turmoil at its borders and to improve the living conditions of it's citizens in a "splendid isolation" - which is pretty much what the US did in the 1950s, only with a stronger emphasis on social cohesion.
2.) The last issue raised is the successors of the cold war enemies being China and Russia while ignoring the fact that there is another, more dangerous, player and that is Islam which has no country and army but is, at the same time, trying to conquer the world in a type of asymmetrical cold war of the 21st century. No, there is no central government and no army that may threaten global destruction, but there is a central ideology that threatens a complete change of society by moving the basis of our foundation back to the 7th century and deleting all improvements Western culture, politics and society have made in the past 1400 years.
The changes that come with a Muslim society are much deeper than Communism vs Capitalism ever thought possible.
1.) Europe/The European Union, The US also has not really understood that it has fallen behind the EU in so many ways as the EU these days, despite the issues with "refugees" from other countries and the fact that the EU is neither a military nor a political powerhouse. The EU simply lives the essence of the US dream, that is the US at the height of the cold war. The EU today is trying, and failing at that, to ignore the political turmoil at its borders and to improve the living conditions of it's citizens in a "splendid isolation" - which is pretty much what the US did in the 1950s, only with a stronger emphasis on social cohesion.
2.) The last issue raised is the successors of the cold war enemies being China and Russia while ignoring the fact that there is another, more dangerous, player and that is Islam which has no country and army but is, at the same time, trying to conquer the world in a type of asymmetrical cold war of the 21st century. No, there is no central government and no army that may threaten global destruction, but there is a central ideology that threatens a complete change of society by moving the basis of our foundation back to the 7th century and deleting all improvements Western culture, politics and society have made in the past 1400 years.
The changes that come with a Muslim society are much deeper than Communism vs Capitalism ever thought possible.
14
Your concept of a monolithic Islam is woefully inaccurate in global terms and is exactly the kind of ideological paranoia which drove the cold war in the first place.
3
The EU is engaged with development in Africa, Latin America and Asia. It contributes significantly more foreign assistance than the U.S. It is about as far from "splendid isolation" as can be achieved in a union that must provide security to over 500 million people.
Islam is not seeking to conquer the world with 7th century barbaric methods. Islam is a religion and a way of life with thousands of branches offering many paths to discover God. Christian and Hindu extremists exist as do atheist. Dr. Guillotine, a product of the European Enlightenment, perfected a method to behead thousands that opposed the revolution. Nazi Germany further industrialized mass killing.
Islam is not seeking to conquer the world with 7th century barbaric methods. Islam is a religion and a way of life with thousands of branches offering many paths to discover God. Christian and Hindu extremists exist as do atheist. Dr. Guillotine, a product of the European Enlightenment, perfected a method to behead thousands that opposed the revolution. Nazi Germany further industrialized mass killing.
Good essay. It often strikes me that, in domestic policy as well as foreign, the US's response to end of communism has been completely counter-intuitive & counter-productive. When we were engaged in an ideological battle with an entirely different system, we practiced a capitalism that was pragmatic, nuanced, & balanced with other social interests. The obligation of finance & industry to support the social structure from which they benefitted was hardly questioned; the necessity of protecting some values (such as government!) from the distortions of the money & corruption was widely accepted.
But now that capitalism is the only game in town, rather than relaxing, rather than experimenting even more with ways to use capitalism to our advantage, we have turned it into a weird, cultish religion, surrendering virtually all public goals & assets to private interests, and adapting an almost maniacal (& unsubstantiated) faith in the power of "markets" to deliver us to utopia. It almost seems we are turning into the ideologically-driven monster we thought we had defeated.
But now that capitalism is the only game in town, rather than relaxing, rather than experimenting even more with ways to use capitalism to our advantage, we have turned it into a weird, cultish religion, surrendering virtually all public goals & assets to private interests, and adapting an almost maniacal (& unsubstantiated) faith in the power of "markets" to deliver us to utopia. It almost seems we are turning into the ideologically-driven monster we thought we had defeated.
60
"we practiced a capitalism that was pragmatic, nuanced, & balanced with other social interests."
We did? I must have watched a different movie.
American capitalism has always been a mosh pit: no rules, just smash and grab. (But I'm still a capitalist. Other systems are unworkable.)
We did? I must have watched a different movie.
American capitalism has always been a mosh pit: no rules, just smash and grab. (But I'm still a capitalist. Other systems are unworkable.)
Wow.... That's it in a nutshell? On the shelf where we keep pop psychology, let's create a section called pop geopolitical history.
1
With the boy fascist in the white house, we are at a watershed moment in American history. His totalitarian ideology does not come from thin air. Why not discuss that in this history lesson?
4
My only objection to the general outline presented in this column is the author's silence on Putin's emergence as the greatest kleptocrat of our time. The author's only pointed mention of Putin is as a man who embodies the anger & resentment of the Russians. They love him & embrace his foxy anti-Americanism only because he keeps them in the dark.
2
In dark about what? About corruption? only fools in Russia don't know about that. Russian newspapers are full of stories about corruption including high Government officials. Russians definitely know about corruption but they prefer Putin because they don't want repeat of 90s, when corruption was masked as economic reforms that left millions struggling for survival.
1
Thank you Mr. Westad. My views are similar, having been shaped by Marshall Goldman's 1970s book about how the nomenklatura (elite) still ruled USSR for their own benefit i.e. communism was a substitution of one elite by another that pretended to more favor the masses, and that the centralized system of economic planning meant more pollution. China continues to suffer from these problems, including the inability of the national govt to enforce pollution laws on state-owned companies. Sen. Gary Hart influenced me with a leading-edge op-ed in 1970s that to understand the Soviets you had to understand their WWII losses and that they were ruled by paranoid old men determined not to repeat that. Nikita K. didn't help with "We will bury you" - and it seems like US hegemony since 1980s has been our own version of that, including the very shameful (and illegal) support of right-wing Contras making war on an elected socialist government in Nicaragua, a very poor unthreatening country. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq were likely 2 of the biggest mistakes in US foreign policy history, wholly unnecessary. Pres Obama put us on a wiser course than the belligerents in the GOP and I hope we stay there somehow, which requires the GOP to have a more intelligent response to his actions than "if he was for it, we're against it." And if US citizens don't like China or other countries suppressing human rights e.g. freedom of worship, let's stop buying from them - a unused peaceable weapon.
39
The case for Afghanistan was entirely different than that for Iraq. There were good reasons for Afghanistan, not the least of which was that it continued to provide a base of operations for Al Queda, which had amply demonstrated its capability to inflict mass casualties on Americans and which had a clear objective to continue such assaults.
Iraq was at best an avoidable blunder. And a tragic one. Obama keeping his campaign pledge to pull out of Iraq only led to further horrors due to the vacuum that allowed ISIS to continue the genocide that has taken place in fits and starts over many centuries in that region.
Iraq was at best an avoidable blunder. And a tragic one. Obama keeping his campaign pledge to pull out of Iraq only led to further horrors due to the vacuum that allowed ISIS to continue the genocide that has taken place in fits and starts over many centuries in that region.
Dude, how old are you?
You must have the world's best memory.
You still remember articles from the 1970s and how much they influenced you? I can't remember what Krugman wrote last week, and I'm only 68.
You must have the world's best memory.
You still remember articles from the 1970s and how much they influenced you? I can't remember what Krugman wrote last week, and I'm only 68.
1
Jim,
I love your funny comment. Thanks for that. I assume that those articles weren't, for Cljuniper, just like something you might read in the paper today. They were *foundational* for how he or she came to understand the world. I read a book about 1981 (I'm 64 today) called Socialism by Michael Harrington that also helped me formulate my worldview, so I remember things in it a lot better than I do articles or sermons I've heard recently.
I love your funny comment. Thanks for that. I assume that those articles weren't, for Cljuniper, just like something you might read in the paper today. They were *foundational* for how he or she came to understand the world. I read a book about 1981 (I'm 64 today) called Socialism by Michael Harrington that also helped me formulate my worldview, so I remember things in it a lot better than I do articles or sermons I've heard recently.
The major reason why the establishment in Washington loathes Donald Trump is that he made a decisive break with George W. Bush and Barack Obama on foreign policy.
In Washington, only Trump opposed and continues to oppose the idiocies of both Bush and Obama.
Looking for their next position, as always the elites and "experts" in DC take sides with either Bush or Obama.
If you support Bush (like the smug neocon Max Boot) you call Trump names.
If you support Obama (like the felonious liar Gen. Clapper) you call Trump names.
While chewing on his famous pretzels, Bush started the Iraq War, without even knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia, leading to chaos in the Middle East. Here we see Republican genius at work.
Obama allowed ISIS to emerge from the rubble of Iraq and unleashed Iran to be the hegemon of the Middle East, thus leading to over two million refugees flooding Europe, and the near-collapse of the EU. Here we see Democratic genius at work.
Lecturing and hectoring everyone, our Professor-in-Chief eventually alienated every single world leader, including his one-time best friend, Angela Merkel.
Netanyahu was absolutely right to address the US Congress and, thereby, humiliate Obama.
Trump is absolutely right to break all the furniture in DC.
Time to clean out the swamps of smugness from our Nation's Capitol.
The more the elites call Trump names, the stronger his support will be among the American people.
In Washington, only Trump opposed and continues to oppose the idiocies of both Bush and Obama.
Looking for their next position, as always the elites and "experts" in DC take sides with either Bush or Obama.
If you support Bush (like the smug neocon Max Boot) you call Trump names.
If you support Obama (like the felonious liar Gen. Clapper) you call Trump names.
While chewing on his famous pretzels, Bush started the Iraq War, without even knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia, leading to chaos in the Middle East. Here we see Republican genius at work.
Obama allowed ISIS to emerge from the rubble of Iraq and unleashed Iran to be the hegemon of the Middle East, thus leading to over two million refugees flooding Europe, and the near-collapse of the EU. Here we see Democratic genius at work.
Lecturing and hectoring everyone, our Professor-in-Chief eventually alienated every single world leader, including his one-time best friend, Angela Merkel.
Netanyahu was absolutely right to address the US Congress and, thereby, humiliate Obama.
Trump is absolutely right to break all the furniture in DC.
Time to clean out the swamps of smugness from our Nation's Capitol.
The more the elites call Trump names, the stronger his support will be among the American people.
3
Perhaps you have not heard that Trump is sending more troops to Afghanistan.
1
Perhaps you being from Budapest explains your eagerness to adore trump. Most Americans despise him for good reason-- he is completely unknowing about American history and American form of government. His fascist tendencies, and the acceptance of same by people like you, scare the heck out of the majority. That's why we want him gone. He has no support among the American people, as you proclaim. He has members of a cult supporting him, and a twisted GOP unwilling to stand up to him. Yet.
2
If Trump were simply a noble exception to the blundering "genius" you describe well, then it could be a very positive thing. The problem is that Trump is many terrible things himself. Simply being different doesn't mean better.
People never learn, and so history does repeat. Until we obliterate ourselves. Good riddance.
1
Normally any US article on things political, especially when dealing with international affairs impresses me as an arrogant superficial ignorant intellectual garbage produced for pathological dimwits that literally interpret their bibles, qurans and other "holy" scriptures and drink beer . This is not the case here, 89% of the time I found myself in agreement with the author. In my opinion he was balanced and knowledgeable. Maybe his Scandinavian descent played some role..........
3
So... those of Scandinavian descent are "balanced and knowledgeable", are they?
TRUMP'S Triumphalism on display with his new Afghanistan surge is yet another deluded iteration of US hegemony in the world. Rather than taking the path forward with the Paris Climate Accords, Trump decided to rescue failure from the jaws of victory by turning his back on the greatest global challenge of our time: global climate change. A victory among the nations who signed on to the Paris Climate Change Accords would indeed advance the cause of all of us who occupy the planet Earth. But all those facts are meaningless to the Ignoramus-in-Chief in the Oral Office. Next thing you know, Trump will, after having pardoned him, name Joe Arpaio as the US Goodwill Ambassador.
4
Wrong!!!!
Chills went down my spine the day the Berlin Wall came down!
The American people wanted the peace that should have followed that occasion.
Why we folded and allowed Cheney and Gingrich et al to enrich themselves with our blood and treasure is beyond normal understanding.
We all hurt after 9/11 but the majority of Americans wanted our special forces working with our CIA and cooperating countries to find the cell that did the crime.
These killers were hiding all along in Pakistan. We are still at war and going to escalate again because we wont address another nuclear power where terror is born and lives. Pakistan. Say it over and over again. While our young people die some more and are maimed in trumps war.
I have deep hate in my heart for devil man trump and his warmongering generals.
I call my congressional reps. A few times a week. I bet a lot of us have been calling and they aint listening.
Chills went down my spine the day the Berlin Wall came down!
The American people wanted the peace that should have followed that occasion.
Why we folded and allowed Cheney and Gingrich et al to enrich themselves with our blood and treasure is beyond normal understanding.
We all hurt after 9/11 but the majority of Americans wanted our special forces working with our CIA and cooperating countries to find the cell that did the crime.
These killers were hiding all along in Pakistan. We are still at war and going to escalate again because we wont address another nuclear power where terror is born and lives. Pakistan. Say it over and over again. While our young people die some more and are maimed in trumps war.
I have deep hate in my heart for devil man trump and his warmongering generals.
I call my congressional reps. A few times a week. I bet a lot of us have been calling and they aint listening.
3
Absolutely off base, wrong conclusions.
1
I think the domestic fallout for us was no less catastrophic than it was for the Soviet Union. Once the Soviet Union collapsed I became afraid: there was now no intellectual counterweight to American triumphalism and the spread of malignant free market capitalism as the new world order, or rather religion. Now that the Communist giant was dead where were we going to put all those decades of fear and hatred?
You can’t simply turn off the fear and hatred of an entire nation overnight. It is much easier to redirect it, especially if it serves your own selfish interests. Enter Newt and Roger Ailes. In short order the Commie-hating far right simply replaced the word Communist with Liberal, redirecting all the hatred and venom once reserved for the Soviets onto Democrats and liberals.
We are still dealing with the death of Communism and not doing it very well. There still is no robust, coherent left of center belief system that garners large support. Anything that will better the lot of ordinary people is branded as ‘socialist’ with the not so subtle reference to the dreaded Commies. The shadow of the Cold War lingers and we still don’t know what to do about it.
You can’t simply turn off the fear and hatred of an entire nation overnight. It is much easier to redirect it, especially if it serves your own selfish interests. Enter Newt and Roger Ailes. In short order the Commie-hating far right simply replaced the word Communist with Liberal, redirecting all the hatred and venom once reserved for the Soviets onto Democrats and liberals.
We are still dealing with the death of Communism and not doing it very well. There still is no robust, coherent left of center belief system that garners large support. Anything that will better the lot of ordinary people is branded as ‘socialist’ with the not so subtle reference to the dreaded Commies. The shadow of the Cold War lingers and we still don’t know what to do about it.
22
A fairly good assessment of societal ills worldwide, and the lack of imagination as to what system could best resolve, or ameliorate, odious inequalities (i.e. unregulated capitalism), and the resultant ravages of poverty, ignorance and violence. Those abusing their power, subjected millions of innocent folks to unnecessary pain and suffering, so their god Greed could remain 'safe', and avarice our downfall. Oue current brutus ignoramus at the helm is but the latest democratically elected tyrant, installed and suported by a morally corrupt republican party, white supremacists' intent in subduing people via ethnic intolerance, and depressing their economic prospects to 'peanuts'. This is resulting in an institutionalized violence, intolerable if we are intent in transcending our petty interests and installing the Golden Rule (do to others as you want to be treated; or, do not do to others what you would abhor them do to you). I am afraid we have become tribal again, sacrificing for our own, while-at the very same time-trying to destroy 'the other'. The dictum that 'no chain is stronger than it's weakest link' seems a forgotten wisdom requiring we act in consequence; and find a new system not promoting the current deep inequalities, and their inequities. Have we lost our capacity to imagine such an ideal...applicable to reality?
1
Just today I saw this list of US external interventions. It really shows what the article here is about;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47701.htm
From Wounded Knee to Syria the list is extensive.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47701.htm
From Wounded Knee to Syria the list is extensive.
1
Including Russia could have destroyed the EU. Brexit is partially a reaction to including only a few smaller former Communist countries into the union. Imagine the disruption by immediately including Russia.
The triumphalism of a few small-minded American politicians caused much more harm than denying EU membership. Rather than recognizing that all sides to the Cold War were winners - there was surprisingly little violence after all - some American politicians insisted on declaring the Russians losers. They needed to bury Communism, which they viewed as the inspiration for Social Security, Medicare and redistributionism, once and for all. They demanded total credit for the victory.
Needing to declare their triumph, these narrow-minded American leaders had to deny the fact that courageous Soviet citizens played the major role in ending Communism. Soviet Communism had proven itself quite efficient at brutally suppressing dissent and those Soviet individuals who unraveled the tangle of Communist rule took great personal risks.
Never mind, the Soviets were declared losers. Having peacefully ended Communist rule, Russians were humiliated on the international stage. And we’re surprised at the rebirth of a hard-necked nationalism?
The triumphalism of a few small-minded American politicians caused much more harm than denying EU membership. Rather than recognizing that all sides to the Cold War were winners - there was surprisingly little violence after all - some American politicians insisted on declaring the Russians losers. They needed to bury Communism, which they viewed as the inspiration for Social Security, Medicare and redistributionism, once and for all. They demanded total credit for the victory.
Needing to declare their triumph, these narrow-minded American leaders had to deny the fact that courageous Soviet citizens played the major role in ending Communism. Soviet Communism had proven itself quite efficient at brutally suppressing dissent and those Soviet individuals who unraveled the tangle of Communist rule took great personal risks.
Never mind, the Soviets were declared losers. Having peacefully ended Communist rule, Russians were humiliated on the international stage. And we’re surprised at the rebirth of a hard-necked nationalism?
4
Like other commentators, I wonder why the author, who writes with authority, left out the "End of History" garbage, which supports his thesis.
Still, I think our post-Cold War failures are more a result of a choice of bad means (e.g., unrestricted NATO expansion, militarized foreign policy) than of ends. If our purpose was to make the world look more like us, we should have engaged in a massive post-Cold War development effort (nation building) rather than engage in morally questionable and politically disastrous adventures, such as Iraq. I believe, though many readers do not, that the world would have been a better and more friendly place, had it come to look more like us, pre-Trump.
The other difficulty with his analysis is that major American strategists (neoconservatives and "great nation conservatives") really wanted to build the sinews of Empire, to make us the new Rome, a policy like that of the Roman Emperors which would have required us to invade anyone who didn't like us. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so that publicly announced imperial intent, confirmed Putin's paranoia and China's "great nation chauvinism" (Mao's term. which deserves to be used about today's China).
A perversion of means, rather than the goal of a more democratic, more market based world, caused of our failures. I should note that Trump has no interest in such a world nor. it seems, in holdover alliances, meant to maintain a peaceful balance of power.
Still, I think our post-Cold War failures are more a result of a choice of bad means (e.g., unrestricted NATO expansion, militarized foreign policy) than of ends. If our purpose was to make the world look more like us, we should have engaged in a massive post-Cold War development effort (nation building) rather than engage in morally questionable and politically disastrous adventures, such as Iraq. I believe, though many readers do not, that the world would have been a better and more friendly place, had it come to look more like us, pre-Trump.
The other difficulty with his analysis is that major American strategists (neoconservatives and "great nation conservatives") really wanted to build the sinews of Empire, to make us the new Rome, a policy like that of the Roman Emperors which would have required us to invade anyone who didn't like us. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so that publicly announced imperial intent, confirmed Putin's paranoia and China's "great nation chauvinism" (Mao's term. which deserves to be used about today's China).
A perversion of means, rather than the goal of a more democratic, more market based world, caused of our failures. I should note that Trump has no interest in such a world nor. it seems, in holdover alliances, meant to maintain a peaceful balance of power.
US foreign assistance to the states that emerged from the former Soviet Union was comparable to the Marshal Plan. The Marshal Plan succeeded because there was a huge unmet demand for consumer products. Produce it and someone will buy it. When the Soviet Union collapsed there were no internal or external markets for much of former Soviet production. Sony radios, VWs and Toyotas were simply much better products. Could the Soviet Union have been collapsed more systematically over a longer time? Unlikely. No one really had a clue, neither the Western experts or the new Russian leaders how to transform a dysfunctional centrally controlled economy.
2
Exploiting fear, in this case of communism, makes it that much easier for the powers that be inside and outside our government to control us, to promote mindless patriotism (national egotism such as that currently exploited by Trump), to turn us against each other, to issue a blank check to the military industrial complex, etc.
29
This comment seems steeped in at least slight paranoia.
Maybe you're right, but I just don't see a lot of validity in the many conspiracy theories popping up on social media,YouTube, etc. America, I don't think, is playing out Orwell's "1984." We're more ignorant and error-prone than evil and conspiratorial.
Maybe you're right, but I just don't see a lot of validity in the many conspiracy theories popping up on social media,YouTube, etc. America, I don't think, is playing out Orwell's "1984." We're more ignorant and error-prone than evil and conspiratorial.
1
"The post-Cold War era was therefore not an aberration but a continuity and confirmation of an absolute historical purpose for the United States. Gradually, however, over the course of the generation that has passed since the Cold War, the United States has become less and less able to afford global predominance."
That's the crux of the matter. Clinton wasn't right but Bush was definitely wrong. I wish the analysis continued to include Barack Obama's tenure. However, you'd more accurately describe his presidency as existing in the post-9/11 era. In which case, the post-Cold War era is more of a blip, an aberration in the continuity of time.
We can speculate on what might have happened but the reality doesn't change. We are still living the consequences of George W. Bush. From his invasion onward, we ceded global hegemony at our own expense. Meanwhile the universalism of the American psyche has evaporated in the intervening years since Gorbachev's signature. The increasing American oligarchy has created a divided nation.
The peace dividend you mentioned is the money grab that has created extreme wealth inequality in our nation today. The party started in the 90's but never ended. The problem is the majority of Americans weren't invited. You can't stand for a unified national principle when the American experience is so utterly distinct. The American population might as well be living in two different worlds.
That's the crux of the matter. Clinton wasn't right but Bush was definitely wrong. I wish the analysis continued to include Barack Obama's tenure. However, you'd more accurately describe his presidency as existing in the post-9/11 era. In which case, the post-Cold War era is more of a blip, an aberration in the continuity of time.
We can speculate on what might have happened but the reality doesn't change. We are still living the consequences of George W. Bush. From his invasion onward, we ceded global hegemony at our own expense. Meanwhile the universalism of the American psyche has evaporated in the intervening years since Gorbachev's signature. The increasing American oligarchy has created a divided nation.
The peace dividend you mentioned is the money grab that has created extreme wealth inequality in our nation today. The party started in the 90's but never ended. The problem is the majority of Americans weren't invited. You can't stand for a unified national principle when the American experience is so utterly distinct. The American population might as well be living in two different worlds.
2
Lost opportunities coupled with the hubris of a seemingly victorious west, led by the United States has led us to this state of renewed rivalries. I remember thinking after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Bloc "look out world". With the United States at the height of it's economic and military power we faced a fork in the road of history: one path led to integration of the east with the west and establishment of a unified Europe under the aegis of the U.S. for the benefit of all. The other led to economic subjugation and military dominance of a "defeated" foe, with all the negative effects of "rapacious capitalism" and psychological "victimhood" attendant.
The acknowledgement of the U.S as an "imperial power" began then and, as it turned out, sowed the seeds of its decline at the same time. The idea of "creating our reality", as Karl Rove was wont to say, seems to have been the wrong path to take.
The acknowledgement of the U.S as an "imperial power" began then and, as it turned out, sowed the seeds of its decline at the same time. The idea of "creating our reality", as Karl Rove was wont to say, seems to have been the wrong path to take.
2
At this household, we have politics every morning for breakfast, thanks for giving us an omelet of subjects to digest.
A truly interesting article that reminds us we are part of a larger picture, not the only ingredient on the table.
A truly interesting article that reminds us we are part of a larger picture, not the only ingredient on the table.
9
Prof Westad does an excellent job of capturing the big outlines of post WWII history and of identifying lost opportunities and major change points. The geopolitical order crafted at the end of WWII has been slowly eroding for awhile and that erosion is now being accelerated by nationalist movements in the US and elsewhere. The real question is what paths are open for the future given current political obstacles and limitations? While advances have been uneven and messy, one can take some hope from the achievements measured by the MDGs, especially as these apply to Latin America. A strong case can be made for principled international leadership and its ability to inspire and project a clear vision of a better and attainable future. At present the voice of potential international leaders is pushed aside by the short term fascination of the press with the divisive rhetoric of nationalists.
1
Good article. I have been saying this for years. America's foreign policy "experts" have got a lot wrong since 1989. I visited Eastern Europe in the early 1990s. My impression was that the people wanted to join the West. Russians I met did not believe they had lost the Cold War. It was their decision to break-up the Soviet Union in 1991. As George Kennan predicted in 1997, in this newpapaper, Clinton's policies risked turning Russia into an enemy. Kennan devised Truman's Soviet containment strategy, He was right. The Russians elected a traditional strong man in Putin in 1999. They feel bitter about the humiliations they endured in the 1990s. Clinton missed an opportunity. However, the military industrial complex still needed an enemy so bringing Russia in from the cold was probably difficult. The Russians are back and they don't trust us.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened the US in the eyes of the world, mainly because we did not win. America has not won too many wars since WW2 but the Gulf War seemed convince Bush's advisers that America was invincible. That was a mistake.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened the US in the eyes of the world, mainly because we did not win. America has not won too many wars since WW2 but the Gulf War seemed convince Bush's advisers that America was invincible. That was a mistake.
4
Russia has never wanted to join neither the EU nor NATO.
"Kept open"? The issue was never raised!
I miss the considerations of the Soviet authorities in this article.
And the Soviet Union with a planned economy, political oppression and censorship could hardly be considered to be on the same moral plane, as the U.S.
"Kept open"? The issue was never raised!
I miss the considerations of the Soviet authorities in this article.
And the Soviet Union with a planned economy, political oppression and censorship could hardly be considered to be on the same moral plane, as the U.S.
4
To summarize the issues: Russia's domestic inefficiency and international brutality (read: Putin). Russia itself will likely devolve into a failed state, with several "republics" seceding formally or by lethal means. The Russian oligarchs can only blame themselves since they substituted a kleptocracy for the government that had at least some concern for its ailing citizens. Of course the oligarchs themselves will escape to locales that harbor their bank accounts and real estate holdings.
3
Apparently, everyone wants to be on the side of the angels, fallen or otherwise. Of course, the angels are always on "our" side too. If unbridled, free-booting capitalism, or police-state communism, is "angelic" what does this say about angels?
The Cold War was one between two systems of exploitation in which the more efficient one dominated. If this is "winning," so much for humanity. Next time around, there might not be a "Noah."
The Cold War was one between two systems of exploitation in which the more efficient one dominated. If this is "winning," so much for humanity. Next time around, there might not be a "Noah."
1
Very cogent.
Thank you for this analysis. Unfortunately our politicians thrive on fears of the electorate, which like all neuroses do not simply disappear with changes in reality. It was therefore, perhaps inevitable that the Cold War would persist in the US long after it was over.
4
As we move into a multipolar world where the US is but first among equals, we should be trying to work WITH rather than against strong powers such as China. We will certainly have many areas of disagreement with them, but we can solve issues such as climate change together. Our President and elected representatives should recognize that the unipolar moment of imperial power projection has long passed and that we have to start getting involved for the better in issues of global importance, where we carry weight.
5
Communism grafted on the centralized power structure of imperial Russia was doomed to fail. The Soviet Union collapsed without civil war - the most amazing development of the 20th century. The challenge to control nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons positioned across the 11 time zones drew the attention of both the U.S. and Russian security personnel. The former Soviet elite suffered even more from the delusion of American victory than did the Americans and dove headlong into neoliberal policies that led to the weakening and destruction of many Soviet institutions that worked quite well. Former Komsomol leaders sought to become captains of industry rather than building on some of the major strengths of their newly liberated countries.
U.S. aid to the former USSR exceeded may have exceeded the Marshal Plan, but did not have a comparable impact. The hypercompetitive western economies provided no role for Russia other than as a source of resources. Russia was no China with surplus labor willing to work cheap. Russian oligarchs viewed the resources that they controlled more as colonial possessions to exploit than as assets to build.
U.S. aid to the former USSR exceeded may have exceeded the Marshal Plan, but did not have a comparable impact. The hypercompetitive western economies provided no role for Russia other than as a source of resources. Russia was no China with surplus labor willing to work cheap. Russian oligarchs viewed the resources that they controlled more as colonial possessions to exploit than as assets to build.
2
For all its dangers, the Cold War gave the world an alternative to American-style Commercial/Financial domination of society and forced the American elite to make nice so that its model of the world wouldn't be so obviously crueler than the theoretical version of Marxism. 40 work weeks, social security, Medicare . . . we probably wouldn't have any of those if the elites of the 20s and 30s felt safe to operate with the same callous disregard for anyone else's well-being that our contemporary elites demonstrate today.
12
super good point. the genius of FDR is that he saw a real threat in the labor strikes and "workers of the world unite" slogans of the early 20th century. He rightfully feared a revolution; the benefits that were accrued to us by him in the 1930s were the result of that avoidance.
2
If unsustainable militarism and insatiable neo-imperialistic impulses had brought the demise of the Soviet Union; the same hegemonic impulses and the desire to shape the US centric world though brought a temporary feeling of the final triumph to the US but soon proved illusory with marked signs of the US decline and limits of its power, leading the world to the present situation of fluxes, with no arbiter left.
4
The larger story is that without the Marxist critique to keep it honest, a triumphalist capitalism is driving its children towards civil war and national annihilation.
Adam Smith postulated a capitalism underpin by authentic ethical considerations; but no such considerations are typically taken into account in the boardrooms of multi-national corporations, much less the mind of our current President.
It was welfare state capitalism in America and the UK, a hybrid that emphasized strong unions and a solidarity between classes reflected through a highly progressive tax code, that defeated the Soviet Union. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was a degenerate laissez faire capitalism reconstituted as neo-liberalism, divorced from any authentic ethical or spiritual considerations, but allied to an emotionally-oriented, intellectually bankrupt form of religiosity, that we exported to Russia - thus setting in motion the crisis that overtook that country, and led to rise of Putin.
IMHO, both socialism and capitalism contains essential seeds of truth; but these truths can only become consistently fruitful when sowed together.
Adam Smith postulated a capitalism underpin by authentic ethical considerations; but no such considerations are typically taken into account in the boardrooms of multi-national corporations, much less the mind of our current President.
It was welfare state capitalism in America and the UK, a hybrid that emphasized strong unions and a solidarity between classes reflected through a highly progressive tax code, that defeated the Soviet Union. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was a degenerate laissez faire capitalism reconstituted as neo-liberalism, divorced from any authentic ethical or spiritual considerations, but allied to an emotionally-oriented, intellectually bankrupt form of religiosity, that we exported to Russia - thus setting in motion the crisis that overtook that country, and led to rise of Putin.
IMHO, both socialism and capitalism contains essential seeds of truth; but these truths can only become consistently fruitful when sowed together.
17
I think that the demise of Labor unions is more to blame for white blue collar dissatisfaction then anything else. Of course business leaders like it when minorities and immigrants are blamed instead of union-busters like Reagan.
1
A gentleman called Ludwig Erhard came exactly to this same conclusion in post-war Germany and called it "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" which is the fundament of social and economic prosperity in Germany until today.
1
How about just an ethical capitalism?
Socialism's only value is that it has humane values. As an economic system, it's dead upon arrival.
Good post. Great minds must think alike. :-)
Socialism's only value is that it has humane values. As an economic system, it's dead upon arrival.
Good post. Great minds must think alike. :-)
Pretty fair. Professor Westad makes only one large mistake, that of asserting a single "America," and impliclty a unity of purpose, a simplicity of shared view, none of which exist.
Their imagining is widely shared -- so widely that the view from Norway is pretty much the same as that from the Harvard common room. In my Lordship's experience, the main difference might be that of the Norwegians sipping cocktails chatting about it all within sight of the sea in Oslo tend to speak better English.
Everybody in the Western world knows the supposedly Asiatic tale of different people looking at different parts of the elephant. The tale is English, from Rudyard Kipling's imagination.
The history of it all since September 11 tells us nothing about American or Russian or anybody else's fears, interests, of hopes and aims.
It tells us that the very different ways people see reality is a better model than elephant-feeling for the very different ways people see reality.
Their imagining is widely shared -- so widely that the view from Norway is pretty much the same as that from the Harvard common room. In my Lordship's experience, the main difference might be that of the Norwegians sipping cocktails chatting about it all within sight of the sea in Oslo tend to speak better English.
Everybody in the Western world knows the supposedly Asiatic tale of different people looking at different parts of the elephant. The tale is English, from Rudyard Kipling's imagination.
The history of it all since September 11 tells us nothing about American or Russian or anybody else's fears, interests, of hopes and aims.
It tells us that the very different ways people see reality is a better model than elephant-feeling for the very different ways people see reality.
1
Huh. I never knew that Kipling was born in the eighteenth century- here's an 1816 poem recounting the actually ancient Indian parable: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/blind-men-and-the-elephant.htm
1
"But most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and if the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States" -- not sure where this came from and certainly this is open to question. I do think that most Americans believed that countries would be better off under a democratic form of government but hardly waned other countries to "look like us". It wasn't until the early 2000's, way past the end of the Cold War that we seriously started to get involved in nation rebuilding
2
Japan. The Marshall Plan in Western Europe. Korea. Saudi Arabia. Israel. Vietnam. Chile. Lebanon. Iran. Honduras. Panama. Nicaragua. And on and on and on. Check your history.
1
A year later, in 1992, intellectuals were toying with the idea that we had reached "The End Of History" and the universal permanent ascendency of liberal democracy was the world's destiny. Instead it marked the seemingly permanent rise of American arrogance, and a campaign of doomed blind nation building in our own image.
25 years later, History has moved on, the world of liberal democracy is very much on the skids, and a frightened America takes cues from its tin pot dictator.
25 years later, History has moved on, the world of liberal democracy is very much on the skids, and a frightened America takes cues from its tin pot dictator.
35
The Cold War victory of the United States and the West over the Soviet Union was no less magnificent than our victory over the Axis powers in World War II, it was merely accomplished without nearly the bloodshed. American policy makers who never took our security for granted kept the nation, and the world, relatively conflict free for 50 years. Your words and logic do not tarnish their accomplishment in the least.
4
Relatively conflict free? Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the mid-east rebellions and atrocities? If that is relatively conflict free, then you must be myopic ( or wearing rose colored glasses).
2
We were not "conflict free" as David Darman points out in his reply. I will give the USA and the Soviet Union credit for avoiding nuclear annihilation, or even nuclear battles. MAD was a pretty successful strategy.
1
Excellent article. But it ignores the role of the US in starting, stoking, and maintaining the Cold War. Most of that time we were the aggressors, the ones pushing the massive arms race with our enormous military budgets and new weapons systems. And btw we interfered in dozens, maybe hundreds of foreign elections.
Read a little about the Dulles brothers and the push to make us the Only Empire after WW11. If we don't know our own history how can we learn from our mistakes?
Read a little about the Dulles brothers and the push to make us the Only Empire after WW11. If we don't know our own history how can we learn from our mistakes?
88
You forget where the Cold War started: in Eastern Europe, where Stalin occupied and forced its communist regime as far as its troops could go, that's in over 10 countries!
This is the act of aggression.
This is the act of aggression.
23
Hooper -- Your letter is full of inaccuracies, read some history about Stalin, Kruschev, and the rest of the Communists -- they invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, continually threatened European countries and undermined countries such as Cuba, and others.
5
Yes, the occupation of Eastrn Europe was brutal, but I agree with Hooper. One man's aggression is another man's defense.
Consider: at the end of WWII, Russia faced a barely bruised US ( they lost approximately 10 million, we lost 500,000, half what Russia lost in the Battle of Stalingrad alone). Our factories were churning out war materiel never seen in history; their industry had been devastated by Germany, who literally unbolted machines and shipped them to Germany for their armaments industry. True, Eisenhower halted at the Elbe, to avoid direct conflict with the Red Army occupying Berlin, but again who really spilled the most blood that defeated Germany? So there sat the strongest military force, not decimated, facing the Russians, who had been invaded three times across their western border (Napoleon and Germany twice). And, oh yes, the US had sole possession of the atomic bomb, that we were willing to use.
So, take a moment and think, despite the brutality and anti-democratic character of the Iron Curtain, what would you have done?
Consider: at the end of WWII, Russia faced a barely bruised US ( they lost approximately 10 million, we lost 500,000, half what Russia lost in the Battle of Stalingrad alone). Our factories were churning out war materiel never seen in history; their industry had been devastated by Germany, who literally unbolted machines and shipped them to Germany for their armaments industry. True, Eisenhower halted at the Elbe, to avoid direct conflict with the Red Army occupying Berlin, but again who really spilled the most blood that defeated Germany? So there sat the strongest military force, not decimated, facing the Russians, who had been invaded three times across their western border (Napoleon and Germany twice). And, oh yes, the US had sole possession of the atomic bomb, that we were willing to use.
So, take a moment and think, despite the brutality and anti-democratic character of the Iron Curtain, what would you have done?
3
Very astute. From the fall of the Berlin Wall, there wax an opening for creating a less confrontational relationship with Russia. Foreign policy elites of both parties failed to take it, and the result was Putin.
21
Russia and Ukraine as part of EU would create a military and geopolitical superpower, that would combine West European technology, Russian natural resources, including oil and the Ukrainian fertile land. It would be a nightmare for US to deal with such a entity. It is conceivable, that the greatest threat to the US today is the EU. Forget ISIS, Taliban and terrorism. They cannot take our money nor soul. Another similar entity to the USA, such as the EU, can.
1
The EU is not interested in our money or soul. Having experienced war first hand they don't want more war. The bigger nightmare for US is China. A stronger EU would help fight terrorism as well. We can no longer be the only super power. We can't even provide jobs, health insurance, public education and a decent standard of living for our citizens.
5
Bizarre comment. Making the EU out at a risk to the US because of 2 (very) non-EU countries that by the way hate each other?
3
At the winter of 1986-7, while doing my Post-Doc at the Kennedy School, I was invited by T. Schelling to a lecture by S. P. Huntington. Huntington’s prophecy was dire and definitive: Gorbachev's Nuclear Abolition vision is nothing but a grand scheme to outflank the West -- first, by manipulating gullible Reagan to dismantle the SDI and then by launching a grand-strategic maneuver to take over Western Europe. Huntington proclaimed he had the experts (the mold of R. Perle) and the intelligence data to prove his clash of American and Russian civilizations’ revelation.
My immediate public response was that Gorbachev was either a Historical Messiah (humanity's savior) or a C.I.A. agent (the supreme of all time). I added that if indeed Gorbachev was on a mission to abolish nuclear weapons, as I strongly believed, the nature of the U.S. reaction will determine whether he'll end up like John the Baptist sans Jesus or like a Universalist Messiah. Gorbachev-Reagan Reykjavik and the signing of the INF treaty dealt a paralyzing uppercut to the nuclear arms race and the subsequent Gorbachev-G. H. W. Bush START backed the international system from the brink of Armageddon.
Alas, from there on it was indeed American strategic and economic triumphalism and Russian economic and political implosion that sowed the dragon-teethes of the logic of deterrence back in the international system – and the world is reaping now a new and potentially even more destructive global arms race.
My immediate public response was that Gorbachev was either a Historical Messiah (humanity's savior) or a C.I.A. agent (the supreme of all time). I added that if indeed Gorbachev was on a mission to abolish nuclear weapons, as I strongly believed, the nature of the U.S. reaction will determine whether he'll end up like John the Baptist sans Jesus or like a Universalist Messiah. Gorbachev-Reagan Reykjavik and the signing of the INF treaty dealt a paralyzing uppercut to the nuclear arms race and the subsequent Gorbachev-G. H. W. Bush START backed the international system from the brink of Armageddon.
Alas, from there on it was indeed American strategic and economic triumphalism and Russian economic and political implosion that sowed the dragon-teethes of the logic of deterrence back in the international system – and the world is reaping now a new and potentially even more destructive global arms race.
13
There's no nuclear arms race with the Russians or anyone else. There's sufficent capability lurking submerged in the coastal waters off both countries to mutually assure total destruction. The proposition that there is, is a distraction from the fact the US is in another kind of race, information and subversion, and we're not doing so well. Perhaps Kruschev was accidentally right about that not firing a bullet thing.
3
To Aftervirtue
For starters you can look at today’s NYT’s headline Trump Forges Ahead on Costly Nuclear Overhaul and learn how Trump is using the billions Obama appropriated for “nuclear modernization” in order to race for the capability to win a nuclear war . What “bullet thing”? Any relations to Alasdair MacIntyre’s “After Virtue”?
For starters you can look at today’s NYT’s headline Trump Forges Ahead on Costly Nuclear Overhaul and learn how Trump is using the billions Obama appropriated for “nuclear modernization” in order to race for the capability to win a nuclear war . What “bullet thing”? Any relations to Alasdair MacIntyre’s “After Virtue”?
How could the new total devastation be more destructive than the old total devastation? It makes the rubble bounce even higher?
Having lived in a country divided and surrounded by the Soviet Union and its 'Iron Curtain', I know for a fact that the Cold War never ended.
Especially not as long as ex-KGB Intelligence Officer Vladimir Putin is at the helm.
Communism, in whatever manifestation it finds itself in, doesn't die that easily -- nor does its ideology, which continues to control the lives of millions in one way or the other. There is nothing democratic about it.
Americans who have never had to contend with living under this kind of system, or behind a Wall, have no way of imagining what it is like; which is why they might easily think the Cold War was over once the Wall came down.
I don't fault the United States (or the West) for keeping Russia at arm's length.
Any perverted notions of power, influence and control can be found on both sides of the board.
After all, the war isn't over.
Especially not as long as ex-KGB Intelligence Officer Vladimir Putin is at the helm.
Communism, in whatever manifestation it finds itself in, doesn't die that easily -- nor does its ideology, which continues to control the lives of millions in one way or the other. There is nothing democratic about it.
Americans who have never had to contend with living under this kind of system, or behind a Wall, have no way of imagining what it is like; which is why they might easily think the Cold War was over once the Wall came down.
I don't fault the United States (or the West) for keeping Russia at arm's length.
Any perverted notions of power, influence and control can be found on both sides of the board.
After all, the war isn't over.
9
Well said -- as a child growing up in Czechoslovakia I agree with you. After coming to the US, my parents always the Americans were naive about the Communists.
2
@Tiburon110
Thanks -- So, then of course you know how difficult it is to have a conversation with those who agree with this president and his incessant fawning over Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Too bad Trump doesn't have a strategy.
Because they do.
Thanks -- So, then of course you know how difficult it is to have a conversation with those who agree with this president and his incessant fawning over Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Too bad Trump doesn't have a strategy.
Because they do.
Does this long essay tell us anything we didn't already know? Doubtful.
2
Some know, but many do not.
2
Clinton's lack of purpose in international affairs? Nonsense. Who halted the five Balkan wars and the accompanying genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo which was essentially left over business from the collapse of communism.
59
"Cold War, like "Capitalism," is a term that confusedly simplifies a large historical process.
The language used by Prof. Westad is very much in the vein of "cold war" and "capitalism," accepting this way of organizing the various strand of history, a history that seems to begin sui generis in 1945.
A broader take on history -- including the entire 20th century, or even the entire "modern" era -- would look quite different. What we would see are very fragile societies coming out of the demise of failed world orders (old regime aristocrats, imperialism/colonization, the remnants of slavery and serfdom, unequal economies, warring states). Nothing replaced that. "Cold War" is a false conceptualization of what went on.
WWII was the end of an era of global-scale destruction that began with WWI. The 'Cold War" era was really a time of groping by desperate peoples to form a new world order.
Take the "reverse course" in Japan in 1947 as symbolic of what was going on. The pre-1947 post-war Japan was an experiment in democracy. The post-1947 Japan was a restoration of the failed old instincts of elites vs the people, and state vs. state -- while democracy and social justice (whether liberal or socialist) were relegated to after-thoughts.
Trump is clearly a reminder that the old 19th century failed world order has not found a replacement. It is not that someone did not win the Cold War. It is that such a way of organizing our history misses the point.
The language used by Prof. Westad is very much in the vein of "cold war" and "capitalism," accepting this way of organizing the various strand of history, a history that seems to begin sui generis in 1945.
A broader take on history -- including the entire 20th century, or even the entire "modern" era -- would look quite different. What we would see are very fragile societies coming out of the demise of failed world orders (old regime aristocrats, imperialism/colonization, the remnants of slavery and serfdom, unequal economies, warring states). Nothing replaced that. "Cold War" is a false conceptualization of what went on.
WWII was the end of an era of global-scale destruction that began with WWI. The 'Cold War" era was really a time of groping by desperate peoples to form a new world order.
Take the "reverse course" in Japan in 1947 as symbolic of what was going on. The pre-1947 post-war Japan was an experiment in democracy. The post-1947 Japan was a restoration of the failed old instincts of elites vs the people, and state vs. state -- while democracy and social justice (whether liberal or socialist) were relegated to after-thoughts.
Trump is clearly a reminder that the old 19th century failed world order has not found a replacement. It is not that someone did not win the Cold War. It is that such a way of organizing our history misses the point.
9
If Clinton had really cared about prosperity he would have started to dismantle the military-industrial complex. He missed that chance. After 9/11 the military-industrial complex started thinking up new reasons for its existence and the chance was gone.
Some kind of integration of Russia into the EU would indeed have been the logical next step. Such an integration would most likely not have amounted to full membership but rather some kind of cooperation.The Russian view is that the US deliberately sabotaged (and still is sabotaging) such an option because an Europe with Russia would be too strong and reduce US influence in Europe.
Some kind of integration of Russia into the EU would indeed have been the logical next step. Such an integration would most likely not have amounted to full membership but rather some kind of cooperation.The Russian view is that the US deliberately sabotaged (and still is sabotaging) such an option because an Europe with Russia would be too strong and reduce US influence in Europe.
43
A few short centuries ago, Spain collapsed because it could not sustain its military ambitions as it attempted to expand its empire.
The military-industrial complex didn't need to start "thinking up new reasons for its existence" too hard after militant jihadis blew up the Twin Towers and killed 3000 innocent Americans.
2
The call for integrating Russia into the EU is one of these idea thought up by intellectuals in the late 20th century who think they have discovered the wheel, but have neglected to read history. Remember Santayna's warning about repeating history. You do not wipe away 500 or 600 years of history with a stroke of the pen.
The West is as much Social Security and Medicare as it is individual liberties.. Yet when the Soviet Union disintegrated, it was seen as a victory of individual liberty over collectivism.
The best way to promote individual liberties is through cooperation, and the best way to promote cooperation is by granting compatible liberties. Healthy communities and societies depend upon fitting the two together in a compatible marriage, not the victory of one vital element over the other.
The best way to promote individual liberties is through cooperation, and the best way to promote cooperation is by granting compatible liberties. Healthy communities and societies depend upon fitting the two together in a compatible marriage, not the victory of one vital element over the other.
38
I would like to say something truly profound in answer to this brilliant analysis, but I cannot.
Professor Westad is exactly correct in his observations. Every American should read this essay.
Professor Westad is exactly correct in his observations. Every American should read this essay.
23
A rare article in US today. I share most of these ideas. As well as the danger we are facing today with US people feeling exceptional and endangered by their fantasies. As you wrote, afterwards we can understand that we were obviously wrong, while in the action all we do seems so coherent.
In this regard, I believe that Gorbachev needs to be recognized as a Genius. We should remember that his will was to transition to a democratic system and that we helped some sort of a military coup against him. What a pity.
In this regard, I believe that Gorbachev needs to be recognized as a Genius. We should remember that his will was to transition to a democratic system and that we helped some sort of a military coup against him. What a pity.
40
Gorbachev had nice ideals but he was absolutely clueless on how to achieve them. The result was that he completely lost control and left a mess.
2
"The Bush version was directed by foreign policy advisers who thought of the world predominantly in Cold War terms; they stressed power projection, territorial control and regime change."
Just like today. Our MIC has become most of our economy, as Ike warned against.
We also are seeing our society being dismantled with an oligarchy emerging where parties, science centers and tech used to be authoritative.
We missed big opportunities globally in the 90s with our stagnant world view, but now it looks like capitalism w/o brakes is just as failed as communism.
Just like today. Our MIC has become most of our economy, as Ike warned against.
We also are seeing our society being dismantled with an oligarchy emerging where parties, science centers and tech used to be authoritative.
We missed big opportunities globally in the 90s with our stagnant world view, but now it looks like capitalism w/o brakes is just as failed as communism.
75
A savvy, well-regulated capitalism is our best hope. It works better than anything so far devised, not perfectly, but better. Capitalism lacks an intrinsic set of ethics; they must be brought in from outside: the government, humane values, business ethics, etc.
1
Our health care industrial complex dwarfs the MIC. North of 2.5 trillion and steadily climbing despite Trump's budget giving a boost to Pentagon spending of roughly 10 percent. As bloated and unnecessary as our military spending may be, health care spending is approximately five times more.
Professor Westad should be commended for a brilliant and inclusive analysis. He mentions the U.S.-China struggle for influence. The existential obstacle for the U.S. to overcome is that while the Chinese rely on empirical evidence, and Real Politik, U.S. policy is often based on the political influence of powerful interest groups and individuals, whose primary goal is furtherance of their own agenda. Glaring examples of this are the Chinese acceptance of global warming and their future plans for a massive shift to renewable energy, while the Trump administration withdraws from the Paris Climate accords, and becomes a mouth piece and sycophant for the fossil fuel oligarchs. The Trump administration withdraws from the TPP. China immediately steps in, offering the TPP countries low interest, long term loans for infrastructure development, utilizing Chinese technology and local labor. It is a fatal flaw when interest group politics and political dogma become dispositive in U.S. policy, instead of Realpolitik and empirical evidence.
114
@ Don Shipp
Don't get too high on the China Kool-aid just yet. China is still building coal-burning power plants at a tremendous rate. It is also building them in its growing list of "client states." BTW, they do not use local labor but set up whole cities of Chinese laborers.
Otherwise, you are quite correct, China has been the big winner so far.
Don't get too high on the China Kool-aid just yet. China is still building coal-burning power plants at a tremendous rate. It is also building them in its growing list of "client states." BTW, they do not use local labor but set up whole cities of Chinese laborers.
Otherwise, you are quite correct, China has been the big winner so far.
1
China obtains the money needed to fund those low interest loans and the rest of its foreign policy by selling its products to us and to the Europeans. We have enabled our major economic and political competitor.
1
The Soviet Union and then Russia proved that success is not based on the choice between socialism and capitalism but rather how the two are merged to best serve the interests of the people and the economic power of a nation.
Now the rivalry is between China and the U.S., two countries with much different versions of the blend of socialism and capitalism. The winner will probably be the country that best utilizes their human capital. This will be largely determined by by the quality of education of the entire populace and the level of meritocracy of the competing systems.
China and the United States are both being dragged down by high levels of corruption, even if they are of different types. In China it is mostly the government corrupting its capitalism, for the U.S. it is capitalism corrupting its government.
Now the rivalry is between China and the U.S., two countries with much different versions of the blend of socialism and capitalism. The winner will probably be the country that best utilizes their human capital. This will be largely determined by by the quality of education of the entire populace and the level of meritocracy of the competing systems.
China and the United States are both being dragged down by high levels of corruption, even if they are of different types. In China it is mostly the government corrupting its capitalism, for the U.S. it is capitalism corrupting its government.
104
Where did the author state or imply that socialism assists capitalism? He is opposed to socialism and communism. Or maybe I missed it; I couldn't find anything on it after perusing the article again.
Your third paragraph, however, is, I think, right on-target. Greedy capitalists, not government, in America are the danger and the major problem. A well-regulated capitalism, though, would and does work well.
Your third paragraph, however, is, I think, right on-target. Greedy capitalists, not government, in America are the danger and the major problem. A well-regulated capitalism, though, would and does work well.
A reminder: it was neo con economists from the United States of Central North America that were invited by Yeltsin to divvy the economy up to his oligarchs.
Not unlike what Wall Street has done only more surreptitiously.
Not unlike what Wall Street has done only more surreptitiously.
62
Yes, there was Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia U. and something called "shock therapy." It was shockingly ineffective except for some communist elite turned oligarchs.
2
I've never heard or read that. But, of course, that doesn't mean what you say isn't true. I'll just pack that away as a mental note; it's amazing how the very information I'm looking for will pop up, often soon. The mental-historic-political world seems rather small also.
Some ideas presented in this article might be valid. But somebody who nourished the idea of Russia being member of the EU lives in his own fantasyland-bubble and, for me, has nothing meaningful to say.
5
Exactly what I thought while reading this essay! I grew up in the Baltiics of the Soviet Union and, knowing how deep the decades of propaganda had affected the opinions of most Soviet citizens and the total mismanagement of the government, I find this idea laughable. Just because the Cold War was over the idea of the West as the ultimate enemy (not just politically but also culturally) to be conquered did not disappear. The success of their post-WWII expansion into Europe was one of their victories and Russia has never stopped celebrating. What does Dr. Westad think was the reason for the establishment of NATO?!
5
I completely disagree. If you know some Russians, there was a whole generation that is now bitter because of us, that would have made Russia a FAR better candidate than some of EU members and some candidate members... We could have channel this energy in something else than warmongering.
1
But the thesis the US lost the Cold War is not the argument made in this piece.
And the idea that marxism Leninism was a mere "ideological" issue, by a professor at Harvard, is stupefying.