Re: “The Quiet Americans” by Keith Gessen.....He was born in Russia in 1975. His name is Konstantinos Alexandrovich Gessen. He moved to the U.S. in 1981. Just to say....I thought to myself “Putin could have written this...”
11
There is no need for nuance or subtlety or great introspection or reliance on a hooker in Thailand. It is all Putin and his attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union and keep himself in charge. The US has no coherent response. We need George Kennan.
7
It would be really interesting to see the same set of interviews with the policy teams in Russia
2
I find it odd that an assistant professor of journalism at Columbia University could so blatantly and one-sidedly support a regime that is so infamous for suppressing free speech and independent journalism. Need I remind him of all the journalists who have been murdered or died under suspicious circumstances under the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin?
8
This is a fabulous article for those of us in the Russian field since the 1990's, and it is hard to add to the many comments. One point that hasn't been made is that in 1992, there was every reason to hope that the strong similarities between Russia and the US could lead to a new geopolitical relationship in which our countries could work together for good. Both are pragmatic, multi-ethnic, rich in natural resources, the workforces are well educated, and the list goes on. Most educated Russians wanted to remake their country to be like us--"a normal country." They were open and eager to meet, interact with, and learn from Americans in the areas of government, law, religion, economics, and politics. It was a time of great optimism on both sides, which makes the current situation so tragic. Unfortunately the "better angels of our nature" were less powerful than greed, triumphalism, arrogance, and callousness. We lost an opportunity that came about almost miraculously to change the history of US/Russia relations, and dark forces seem destined to keep us sliding into something even worse than the old Cold War. Is it still possible to create a US policy towards Russia based on the notion that its people could be our friends and partners and that we would be better off as a nation if they were? It will be very difficult to get there, but it seems to me that it is still a fight worth having.
5
Since the State Dept. has been gutted and many positions left open, I hope our heavily financed enormous DoD will hire the experts who left. After all, who more than the generals would understand that diplomatic efforts and intelligence gathering is less costly than war and threats of war. Separately, the billions that Putin has stolen from the country needs to be fully exposed. Where he hid them, etc. As Russia's ruling thug--he needs to be seen for what he's done. Similarly to America's ruling thug, Trump. Let the sunshine reveal their criminality in all its iterations.
9
While this article helps to explain many of nuances amoung US foreign policy professionals, it seems to blame our problems with Russia on the number of people we have that know a lot about Russia.
But with the possible exception of the rapid expansion of NATO, I don't think any of the things we did that the author cites as aggregating tensions--Yugoslavia, Iraq, Ukraine--were driven by our "Russian hands", and were probably a little constrained by them. And in retrospective, NATO expansion seems MORE, not less, justified.
There are clear limits to what the US can or should do to appease any nation's paranoid, illiberal nationalism.
11
Interesting that Rybka, the little fish, had two minutes of fame and then the whole affair was forgotten by the American press. Shouldn't someone be interested in what she has to say?
6
Shorter: Putin is a dictator. Russia likes a strongman, until it doesn't, then it likes the next strongman. The rest is commentary.
10
Michael McFaul’s WP piece “The Smear That Killed The Reset” should be read with this. Certainly not this Gessen piece alone but both instead can give one true satisfaction of at least scratching the surface of a dangerously dysfunctional relationship...Just as the United States seems incapable of parting with its post 9/11 siege mentality (and the corporate advantages that have shamelessly accrued here across the board), Russia will never part with its liberator cum conqueror precedence over Eastern Europe. To depict previous POTUS and their advisers as vaguely competent and blatantly incorrigible conveniently dismisses (maybe Gessen isn’t saying or for now doesn’t care) the bizarre opportunism of a high-profile punk practically begging to be schooled by a thug.
4
Fascinating, well written essay. Russia as a person would be an old, brilliant, drunk paranoiac. You keep some distance from them, and an eye on them.
6
At a time of constant and rapid change, it is almost comforting to know you can still count on the Times for unbalanced blame America first articles. Mr. Gessen may surpass Mr. Trump as Putin's foremost apologist, no matter how many Russian journalists or dissidents are murdered.
4
"But the other strain, which aimed to spread American-style democracy as far east as possible into Eurasia, has never been discredited."
While helpful, this article omits the real issue: What our government has always (except under FDR) been trying to impose on Russia since 1917, is this deeply flawed so-called American- style democracy.
Only now are so many Americans coming to see that what we really have is governance hideously corrupted by what are variously called corporatists, Capitalists, profiteers, entrepreneurs, the 1%, and so on. Shorn of its masks and propaganda, our economic system has always been based on the using of other people’s lives to make as much money as possible for some people and their less-privileged managers, professionals, academics, including these “Russia hands.”
Now that profit economics is failing to give us “ordinary” Americans decent lives free of financial anxiety, and our children fear what the future holds for them, our oligarchs are looking to take over the whole world to forestall the growing resistance of Americans to their power. For many years Russia, with its socialism, and now nationalism, has been a stubborn foe of the American profit system taking over the world. It is now no wonder that this country has become the target of our oligarch’s greatest fury, MSM lies and encirclement by NATO. Without taking into account this central driving motivation, any analysis will be fatally biased.
6
Monsieur Gessen. Merci pour cet article formidable. I truly enjoyed your analysis! (A Frenchman living in Moscow)
5
BTW, Mr. Gessner, some in our family actually personally knew George Kennan, and I have doubts that he would find your article quite as balanced as you seem to think it is. Some of the very people he met and knew in Latvia had to flee for fear of their lives and had other relatives murdered. All you talk about it spheres of influence and Russian fears and act like everyone in between are mindless pawns for Russia to play with.
8
This is a remarkable read.
2
Is it hysteria to respond to the documented acts of hostility of Russia?
Rather than a long harangue I would like to know what would be considered an appropriate and measured response to these events and how "better relations" might be achieved while taking these events in consideration.
I have been struck with the notion of many people that a good relationship with Russia is achievable and of merit yet that is proposed with total disregard to the events that in the real world have precluded such a simple formulation.
So what would be a measured and appropriate response to these and why was the US response considered not appropriate?
1. The invasion of Georgia
2. The invasion and annexation of Crimea
3. The Shooting down of a civilian airliner by a Russian missile crew in eastern Ukraine
4. The fomenting and arming of separatists in eastern Ukraine and supplying of armed soldiers, mechanized armor and munitions. With the deaths of 10,000 people as a result.
5. The continued support of the separatists and the war there.
6. The hacking of US political entities and the weaponization of the material obtained to affect the outcome of the US election
7. The formation and support of propaganda trolls to influence politics in social media in Ukraine and the US and UK.
8. The use of chemical weapons in another sovereign state in an assassination attempt, previously one w/polonium.
Should the US just shrug and say let's be friends?
Events shape relationships.
17
As a little vignette that tends to refute the implication by the author here and by Russia's propaganda machine that the events in Ukraine and Russia's reaction were precipitated by the overbearing influence of the US State Dept personified in Victoria Nuland this excerpt from a Guardian article works well.
While Yanukovych (pro-Russian) was still in office in Ukraine and was still proceeding with plans to adopt a trade association with the EU, this gives everyone a clear understanding of Russia's motivation and tentative plans concerning Ukraine even in 2013.
It wasn't because of nationalists taking over Ukraine as Yanukovych was still in power. It wasn't because of Soros or Victoria Nuland or separatists in eastern Ukraine, as no separatist movement then existed.
It was because Russia felt it was entitled to control Ukraine as a satellite rather than a neighboring sovereign state.
I encourage everyone to read the article in its entirety.
"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-tra...
12
I apologize to all the readers here. I wrote my initial comment ("I suppose Mr. Gessen gets credit...) almost 20 hours ago and when I saw it wasn't published, I excised the last sentence ("Nice try, Mr. Gessen") thinking that was perhaps too "ad hominem" for the moderators.
Now they've published it three times.
Sorry!
1
Here is a good example of why I subscribe to NYT from a place 10,000 miles away. I recall the snack handouts in Ukraine protests. And the Russian hooker yelling out her story from the back of prison van. And due to advancing years more than a few other events recounted here. This article joins more dots than I could ever have imagined.
I wonder what they are talking about on Hannity and Fox & Friends ...
5
There is no mention here of Putin's brutal attack on global democracy. And zero mention of the words "kleptocracy" or "authoritarianism." Instead, the author assigns blame to Ambassador McFaul and Secretary Clinton, two of democracy's bravest upstanders. Like other readers' comments suggest, one is left wondering about the aim of the writer, given that we are living through this surreal chapter of history.
13
Victoria Nuland, a "Russia hand" in Washington, this is so grotesque that I can only wonder what the United States have in their diplomatic basket. Unbelievable.
3
You must know something others don't. She represented the interests of The US, which is what the diplomatic corps is charged with.
6
Would we like to have a Chinese led defense alliance against the US that includes Mexico ?
7
Would we create conditions so appalling to Mexicans that they would beg for such an alliance?
That's a closer analogy to the conditions Putin has created in eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics.
4
One surprising omission in this list is Condi Rice, Bush's favorite Russia hand and his Secretary of State. That might have been an interesting interview.
8
Since the military-industrial windfall from the Bush-Cheney GWOT was neither the gusher hoped for nor sufficient justification of new and expensive weapons systems, it is apparently deemed time to dust off the old standby Russian bear. It served admirably in the war for the defence of profits for 50 years so let's give them another chance, eh? I mean what R & D profit is there in countering an enemy with 30 year old Toyota pickups?
1
Okay, but if you're right you must admit that both sides are complicit.
That makes Gessen half wrong.
Thanks to Professor Gessen and to the Times for this interesting, contextualized piece. Sad that its appearance in these pages should surprise, but perhaps it's a sign that the anti-Russian fever is abating.
Three things:
1) Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, the hawkish co-founder of PNAC. Nuland was Cheney's Principal Deputy National Security Advisor during the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion, from July 2003 until May 2005. So yes, she was with the VP when 'Cheney was Cheney'.
2) Regarding NATO expansion, GWU's NSArchive recently released documents detailing Western assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. Baker used the ‘not one inch eastward’ phrasing three times with Gorbachev in February 1990.
3) Glad to see James Blunt and the Pristina incident receive renewed attention. The disagreement split the highest levels of NATO, with British 3-Star General Michael Jackson refusing the orders of our 4-Star Wesley Clark, saying "I'm not going to start Word War III for you."
Put that phrase on a t-shirt in the Times Shoppe, and you might sell a few – even, one hopes, to a few reporters. Sadly, the current demonization of Russia makes heroic acts of conscience like Blunt’s and Jackson’s all the less likely. But sincere thanks for this article.
9
Maybe Baker said what you claim and maybe he didn't but nothing of the sort made in to any written agreement.
Including the 1994 mutual sovereignty agreement.
1
If I were to teach journalism, as Mr. Gessen does, I would use this article as an example of how NOT to do journalism. To describe Russia hands and their views and policies without ever explaining the developments in Russia is akin to describing doctor's choice of treatments without ever mentioning the disease. The fact is that the hard-liners and nationalists were slowly gaining power since 1995, and it had little to do with the US and its policies. Mr. Putin's arrival was a completion of the nationalist coup aiming at restoring the Soviet glory, and it was engineered by the intelligence services. To blame NATO's expansion is a preposterous piece of the Kremlin propaganda that tries to portray Russia as a victim. I do not recall a case of NATO invading any country in its 69 year old history with the exception of the Bosnia and Kosovo bombings and that was undertaken reluctantly in order to prevent the genocide. By contrast, the track record of the Soviet and Russian invasions speaks for itself. It is sad to see people like you falling into Moscow's propaganda traps together with some new Russia hands. Democracy is a threat to any dictator and blaming the US and the West for spreading it is both naive and insidious. I think most people would rather receive a sandwich from the hands of Victoria Nuland than the Russian bullets and threats.
15
"If a British officer named James Blunt had not refused to act on an order from Gen. Wesley Clark to clear the airport, things might have turned out a lot worse.”
Blunt did not refuse to act on an order. Yes was in the British Army in Kosovo in 99, when Russian soldiers took over an airfield, as a 25 year old soldier. It was Gen. Mike Jackson, who refused an order to “overpower” Russian troops. Blunt only ever said he WOULD have done (in a BBC interview) if he had been commanded to, which he wasn’t because Gen. Mike Jackson overturned the order. For such a great article, this is sloppy.
8
Bottom line, our two countries are the biggest threat to human survival on this blue planet. Greed and corruption are endemic in both countries, and we both possess enough thermonuclear firepower to destroy life many times over. To argue which side started it and which side has the moral superiority is meaningless. I visited the Soviet Union, stood on red square and seen the proletariat lined up to visit Lenin’s tomb. I have seen the alcoholics in Russia, the addicts in the US. I know if the west and east worked together we could do many great things, just look at the ISS. But I have zero hope for our species survival, zero.
4
Yup, found Russia on the map. Big place. So we really think we licked em? Such self-confidence is almost pathetic.
I do not trust Putin or Trump at all. They have both worked hard to earn that reputation.
3
The West has for centuries thought it had to "deal" with Russia. That several unprovoked invasions into that poor country failed has not discouraged us, just left Russia severely damaged time and again.
The last devastating blow in the 1990s left the Russian economy in ruins, killing 10 million people. No equally disasterous social catastrophe in memory has left the enlightened intelligentsia in the West more indifferent.
Why not try something peaceful and benign for a change? The Russian people have chosen Vladimir Putin as their leader, with a larger majority than any other world leader has enjoyed. The very definition of "presumptuous" must be to criticize the Russians for that.
Hostile actions by Russia, aimed at other countries, must of course be criticized and worked against. But first we must take into account our own provocations and false flag operations to determine where the primary guilt really lies.
We all know the moral universalism saying that we must apply (at least) the same standards on ourselves as we do to others.
6
There is no reason we should not be getting along well with Russia, and plenty of reasons we should be. And we get along very well do keep in mind; if the issue is above politics. Russians taking our people to outer space on Russian craft, cooperating in the skies over Syria or in heavy physics research at the Superconducting Super Collider carries on swimmingly. You meet a Russian and the conversations are outstanding.
Neoliberals and neocons have created a vile propaganda campaign against Russia for a variety of reasons. Pols like a handy bogeyman, Russia works for that, because of the built in leftover Cold War rot in the American mind. American lenders wanted US tax money to flow to the coup government we installed in Ukraine, to be skimmed by their corrupt neofascist pols to pay back loans. The obvious reason is that corporate democrats need a scapegoat after conspiring to rig the primaries vs Sanders, and losing the election with the most disrespected candidate and worst campaign in 40 years. Blame Russia!
Students of history are appalled. The more you read about Russians, the more you must realize that they are very much like a mix of the Irish & Texans. Exceedingly full of heart and soul, poetry and vigor for life and their land. Thank goodness about half of Americans understand the media is not trustworthy and neocons & neolibs have rotten agendas. It's a shame, because of the good we could do if the US would get off it's phony moral high horse.
2
This is a brilliant, insightful and nuanced view of US and EU relations with Russia. I was delighted to learn so much from this article. Congratulations to the author and to the NYT.
2
Great article. The topic was well researched and explained. Thank You! So rare these days.
Your failure to use Trump in the title and not blame him for the collapse of civilization as we know it, will lead most NYT readers to avoid this piece and those that read it will tire quickly, unless you at least say "Trump" every so often. That's the way it works now! A full read is highly unlikely. Many of them didn't get very far based the comments they left!
Hope the Times prints starts printing well written, informative articles like this more often.
9
"Well researched?"
it started with a conclusion (hint: it's in the title) and then sought to bolster that conclusion with some very cursory nods to actual historical reality (i.e. the very real fear former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republic had about Russia).
6
I suppose Mr. Gessen gets credit for at least erecting a, ahem, Potmkin village of balance in his analysis by briefly acknowledging the very real fear on the part of newly-independent Eastern European states and former Soviet Republics who begged to join either NATO and/or the EU in order to attain escape velocity from Russia's self-declared "near abroad" orbit.
Still, he writes as if that fraught history only began with the formation of the Soviet Union. Any of the "Russia hands" he interviewed, regardless of political stripe or handy category, would have been glad to point out that distrust of the Great Bear precedes the Soviet Union by centuries.
The so-called "abiding mystery" of the last 25 years of US-Russia relations is really no mystery at all. For almost 20 of those 25 years Vladimir Putin has been the actual and de facto leader of Russia (the only "mystery" is the phony legitimacy Gessen grants the Medvedev years).
By the time Putin reached the presidency he already had a well-nurtured chip on his shoulder and an acute case of victimhood. He outmaneuvered the other apparatchiks, made a harsh example of Khodorovsky, and won the mob war.
None of this would have mattered if western corporations could have safely invested in Russia. Unfortunately, by the time Putin came along, the "wild East" already had a horrible reputation and all that FDI went to China instead.
Putin's actions since then have proved the hawks right.
Nice try Mr. Gessen.
9
"That society now looks sick."
This is the author's considered opinion of the United States.
If that describes the US, the largest economic power in the world with the best universities in the world (one of which he is employed by), with a vibrant democratic system .
Contrast that with Russia, after almost 30 years to remake itself into a modern advanced state from the remnants of a failed economic and governmental system.
The early attempts at remake resulted in the emergence of thieves in the governmental sector who pandered to the mafia that comprised a great part of the unofficial economy and finally the siloviki, the bureaucratic military and intelligence apparatus who wanted to control their share of the pie.
In contrast to other ex-Soviet states, Russia was only able to stabilize itself when oil and gas prices boosted the economy to something fairly prosperous.
The mafia remained, oligarchs remained who were tolerated or sponsored by the enshrined autocrat who still entrenches himself in power aided by state control of the media and the steady production of lurid, fantastical propaganda on state owned media. All processes that allow real political opposition are crippled and controlled by the autocrat.
After 18 years in power the economy is still undiversified and totally dependent on exporting gas and oil.
This is a society that cheered the invasion of a neighbor, Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea.
This is a sick society. Moribund and gasping to survive.
7
I know where to start when one wants to understand why Russia-US relationship has deteriorated. How about Russian invasions in Georgia and Ukraine? Every country should have the right to choose their own path. That's one of the fundamentals of the world's security order. US and Europe offer a vision here that Russia is unable to replicate, so it tramples with tanks on others freedom.
I don't know any sensible person who'd want to actually live in a country like Soviet Union. A place plagued by corruption, system-induced poverty, planned economy, and censorship. A wrongly said words earned you a visit by the KGB. You don't need to go to a fishing vessel to know that.
8
I suppose Mr. Gessen gets credit for at least erecting a, ahem, Potmkin village of balance in his analysis by briefly acknowledging the very real fear on the part of newly-independent Eastern European states and former Soviet Republics who begged to join either NATO and/or the EU in order to attain escape velocity from Russia's self-declared "near abroad" orbit.
Still, he writes as if that fraught history only began with the formation of the Soviet Union. Any of the "Russia hands" he interviewed, regardless of political stripe or handy category, would have been glad to point out that distrust of the Great Bear precedes the Soviet Union by centuries.
The so-called "abiding mystery" of the last 25 years of US-Russia relations is really no mystery at all. For almost 20 of those 25 years Vladimir Putin has been the actual and de facto leader of Russia (the only "mystery" is the phony legitimacy Gessen grants the Medvedev years).
By the time Putin reached the presidency he already had a well-nurtured chip on his shoulder and an acute case of victimhood. He outmaneuvered the other apparatchiks, made a harsh example of Khodorovsky, and won the mob war.
None of this would have mattered if western corporations could have safely invested in Russia. Unfortunately, by the time Putin came along, the "wild East" already had a horrible reputation and all that FDI went to China instead.
Putin's actions since then have proved the hawks right.
Nice try Mr. Gessen.
4
"Many of those who finished graduate school or officer-training school in the late ’80s or early ’90s bear the scars of having studied a subject that became seemingly irrelevant overnight."
This is an extremely important observation in understanding the role of "Russia hand" in American foreign policy. I was in graduate school earning a Ph.D. in political science (specializing in international relations) precisely during the period in question (from 1987 to 1993). I recall vividly peers of mine in grad school who started their studies working with eminent Russia experts whose scholarly worked developed over a lifetime in academia was seemingly rendered irrelevant overnight.
My peers who started as budding "Sovietologists" either had to switch the direction of their dissertations or somehow make it relevant to a post-Cold War world. No grad student in international relations during the period in question was unaffected by the events swirling around at the time.
The result is that a generation of international relations scholars was scared off of specializing in Russia and the former Soviet empire. Exceptions such as Michael McFaul, profiled extensively in this article, are left with the baggage of having come of scholarly age during a period of intense self-scrutiny of supposed Soviet "area specialists." The consequences are laid bare in this fine article.
7
As one involved in those Russia debates during the 1990s, this article was welcome. Back in 1992, fresh from living in Moscow, as well as stints in the Caucasus, I thought the fall of the Soviet Union had produced a bizarre stalemate - a “loser” unwilling to admit defeat and a “winner” with no real clue what do with its “victory.” The event still brings to my mind parallels with the 1918 Armistice, with the Soviet Union playing the part of Imperial Germany whose leaders quietly sought an end to a war they could not win. Did America then make the problem worse by concocting its own Versailles—as Putin now convinces most of his people—an arrogant, clueless victory demanding Russia’s humiliation? Even in 1992, I feared Russian elites would eventually become skilled at spinning this, long before anyone had ever heard of Putin. But I greatly underestimated the ease it took to convince Russians yearning for order and a strong hand.
But some truths remain. For a brief interlude, every Russian neighbor, to say nothing of its chief adversary, wished it well. But now, no matter how hard he spins the lies, Putin’s kleptocracy has changed all,of that. Once again, Russia is mostly feared, distrusted and reviled. And sadly, not enough Russians today have access to sources of information to allow them to ask - how did this happen? How did we squander our unique moment in history? Russia hands’ failings or no, this remains the one question Russia will not ask itself today.
8
Mr. Gessen, has compelling shown how worst fears about the other is holding the US-Russia relationship from becoming normal with usual pull and push that one would expect between two independent and truly sovereign states in matters of international affairs. That being said, Russia will never be a security dependent state for the US. This means that the US will have to accept Russia's independent and self-interested position on international conflict such as on Syria.
1
Wonderful read for me, a non-policy wonk and less able historian. I feel more informed about the issues on both sides, the USA and Russia. I believe the interactions with Russia and our current administration (if we can call it that) help leed us to another war that lines the pockets of the masters of war, the billionaires who put trump in office and their sycophants who pick up the loose change from their bulging pinstripe suits (should be black and white pinstripes of prison issue of old).
2
To talk about Russia policies without discussing developments in Russia itself is like talking about the doctor's choices of treatment without ever describing a patient's disease. The fact is that the hardliners and nationalists in Russia were regaining power at least since 1995, and it had little to do with the US policies. Putin' arrival only completed a coup by the intelligence services bent on restoring the Soviet glory.
The expansion of NATO is one of the typical Kremlin's red herrings that is meant to present Russia as a victim and use NATO as a propaganda weapon. Unlike Russia, NATO does not have an offensive posture and did not invade a single country in its nearly 70 years old history.
Democracy is a basic human condition regardless of the US policies. It is a mistake to put the onus on the US foreign policies, imperfect as they are, and not to consider the Kremlin's objectives within and outside of Russia.
8
When the old Soviet Union fell apart, I was working in the philanthropic sector. Overnight, pushed by a wave of good intentions by a few very large US & European foundations, every US foundation thought it should get into international funding. Groups of so-called 'community leaders' from newly independent nations were given money to come to the US and learn how to 'do' philanthropy. Large grants were made to emerging non-profits. Through a friend I learned that the World Bank was setting up 'democracy' institutes to teach newly elected government leaders such fundamentals as accountability. "Transparency" was a hot-button work. Some of those involved thought they were leading a new Marshall Plan -- only there was no coordinated goal and no clear plan. I watched, and wondered how all of this soft invasion of do-gooders would look to the former Soviet leaders still living in those newly-freed countries, and how it would seem to Russians to have billions of dollars being pushed into the hands of organizers who ran what, to the Russians, would have looked like opposition political groups. The subsequent demonization of George Soros and his philanthropic efforts demonstrates the outcome of the optimistic but flawed historic moment.
5
Yes, the foundations stepped in when governments didn't. The corporate sector, for its part, was fixated on sending all their investment dollars and euros to China.
The perverted lesson that Putin drew from this was "stability(China) is rewarded, democracy (Russia circa 1991-1999) is not."
Of course, asset rip-offs and kidnappings tend to discourage investment too!
2
I suppose Mr. Gessen gets credit for at least erecting a, ahem, Potmkin village of balance in his analysis by briefly acknowledging the very real fear on the part of newly-independent Eastern European states and former Soviet Republics who begged to join either NATO and/or the EU in order to attain escape velocity from Russia's self-declared "near abroad" orbit.
Still, he writes as if that fraught history only began with the formation of the Soviet Union. Any of the "Russia hands" he interviewed, regardless of political stripe or handy category, would have been glad to point out that distrust of the Great Bear precedes the Soviet Union by centuries.
The so-called "abiding mystery" of the last 25 years of US-Russia relations is really no mystery at all. For almost 20 of those 25 years Vladimir Putin has been the actual and de facto leader of Russia (the only "mystery" is the phony legitimacy Gessen grants the Medvedev years).
By the time Putin reached the presidency he already had a well-nurtured chip on his shoulder and an acute case of victimhood. He outmaneuvered the other apparatchiks, made a harsh example of Khodorovsky, and won the mob war.
None of this would have mattered if western corporations could have safely invested in Russia. Unfortunately, by the time Putin came along, the "wild East" already had a horrible reputation and all that FDI went to China instead.
Putin's actions since then have proved the hawks right.
4
I don't recall reading another recent story like this about Russia. Something about the way it was written that makes it neither pro-Russian nor anti-Russian. I really enjoyed it.
It seems that part of the problem is that careers in the State Department are made on confrontations and controlling chaos rather than on building long term relationships and improving stability around the world.
But I am still hopeful that despite of the missteps of the foreign policy towards Russia in the past 20 years and the fact that having Russia as an enemy is "good for business" the voices of reason will still prevail at some point.
12
I love how you just assign all the "missteps" to the US. Nice.
3
Appreciate the depth to which Mr. Gessen sought to examine who were the Russsian hands. But, without bringing in the integral question of how the State Department desks interrelate with each Administration, the answer to his slice of the world examination fails to bring forth the entire story.
4
Russia is a fully realized Trumpian state. It does not take care of its own people. The Kremlin maintains control with sham elections and its own white nationalism. The oligarchs have stolen hundreds of billions from the people. Political adversaries are imprisoned or murdered. It is willing to ally itself with any regime no matter how reprehensible. The judiciary is not independent. There is no free press. Conspiracy theories and fake news drown out everything else.
There is nothing "chauvinistic" about not liking or wanting those things. It is a reasonable assumption that the citizens of other countries don't want them either. That assessment of the present state of Russia is factual. It is not "embracing Russia as a supervillain." A discussion of "Russia hands" is a nice way to enter into the discussion as to why things worked out as they did. All the same, it is only an entrée. Many important things would be lost if we were to let their shortcomings and a priori philosophies obscure them.
45
Keth Gessen, should I trust your research, or are you inclined to let a good story get in the way of facts? The musician James Blunt (then Blount) was not the officer who refused to act on Wesley Clark's orders. That was General Mike Jackson, the K-for British commander.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm
22
Can individual personalities choices in the Foreign office explain it ?
NO
The US broke an agreement , struck when it negotiated with Russia over German reunification, that Nato would "not expand one inch forward"
Under Clinton, the US expanded Nato into Eastern Europe, for hundreds of years in the sphere of influence of Russia (Katherine the Great famously rewarded one of her lovers by making him King of Poland).
No great power can allow an other great power to have defence alliance up to its border. Buffer states do have a function.
This inevitable following conflict fare exceeds personalities. Including Putin. No Russian leader can allow this.
====
"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make "iron-clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany's western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO's expansion."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-dea...
27
I agree with you that Clinton's expansion of NATO, followed by the placement of missiles in Eastern Europe in the early '00s, were unnecessarily provocative and put Russia in a defensive posture. Bush's embrace of Putin's soul also sent mixed signals to Moscow, and Washington's aggressive war on terror may have given the Russian president the impression that anything he did to crack down on dissent at home would be okay with that war.
That said, since Putin was elected in 1999 the U.S. has had four presidents -- Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Relations won't likely improve until and unless Russia demonstrates that it can also change its own cast of characters from time to time.
5
The record on NATO's eastward expansion is not nearly so clear as those who decry the inclusion of former Soviet satellites in the alliance maintain. At most NATO informally committed itself not introduce foreign troops into the eastern part of Germany, and not to deploy nuclear weapons into Germany nor into areas previously occupied by the USSR.
Far from moving quickly into former Soviet-dominated areas, for years NATO repeatedly rejected pleas, especially from Poland and the Baltic states, for NATO protection. Throughout the 'nineties, Moscow, even in its weakened condition, continued to challenge the territorial integrity of the Baltic countries, especially Estonia, whipping up ethnic Russian minorities to undermine the national independence.
NATO's response was that it would not even consider admission of any state under external threat (i.e., by Russia.) The logic was weird. NATO protection would be considered only after all disputes with Moscow were settled. This was equivalent to offering protection only after its need had passed.
Too much is made of the charge that the West took advantage of Russia's weakened condition after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even at its weakest Russia remained a huge--and threatening--superpower compared to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the other former Soviet satellites in east central Europe. The same applies to the rest of the post-Soviet "near abroad."
4
Well, thanks for leaving us to rot as a 'buffer state'. Bear in mind-- everybody has the right to choose their own political and economic alliances! We would like to retain that right.
1
In discussions with Russians and "Russian experts" who are not aligned with the US but have a more independent and historical take on developments in Russia from WWII (The Great Patriotic War which cost the Soviet Union 27 million lives), on, one gets a completely, utterly different take on why US -Russian relations are pitiful and what Russia's concerns are and what its role was in Georgia and Ukraine. Briefly - the US has expanded NATO and its influence over former Soviet nations for the purpose and/or effect of threatening Russia with a Jihad like export of Western economic and political influence. It seems impossible to consider an article like this when it completely ignores history, the threat to Russian sovereignty posed by many US and Western backed activities, and by potentially destructive political divisions with Russia that the US and its media glorify and support. Too bad - we just get essentially more US propaganda and little if any realistic and historically based factual analysis.
13
this is accurate. Russia indeed has much to lose from freedom of expression.
1
Funny you should mention propaganda, your statement sounds similar to that.
Your statement confirms the belief that Russia somehow by rights of inheritance was entitled to dominion and leverage over newly sovereign states after controlling them for 70 years through a forced union or previous to that imperial conquest.
This confirms the fact that Russia simply cannot adjust itself to the reality that it is not a superpower, economically or militarily or politically as it once was when controlling appendages that it no longer possesses.
As for the NATO argument, consider that the two neighboring countries Russia has attacked just happen to not be members of NATO. Any reasonable person can draw the correct conclusion from that fact.
There may have been verbal assurances about NATO before the breakup of the USSR but it was never formalized and the Soviet Union since disappeared.
By contrast, consider the written agreement by Russia, the US, UK to honor Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
You'll never hear a Russophile mention this.
Russia is now an economy the size of Italy with a lot of nuclear weapons.
They will not gain the influence they crave by being a bully with a chip on his shoulder on the world stage.
4
They do not crave influence. Indeed, there's a belief that influence opens the door to the contagion of non-Russian ideas, such as freedom of thought and a liberality that can be vulgar, but unleashes the creative spirit.
Rather it's mastery. The power to tell others to simply go away. This leads to the national defense strategy of the glacis, building a steep and barren expanse and hiding behind it. It's a cowardly strategy even when it works. Good example, false profiles terrorizing the women and children of US service members, pretending to be ISIS. Yes, it works. It's also beneath contempt.
1
You could interview a bunch of old "American hands," foreign service officers and diplomats from other countries with experience dealing with the ups and downs of the United States, and come away with similar disparate, and often negative, impressions. As for Fried, with all due respect to his babysitting experience, he should know better than to call what passed for communism in the Soviet Union actual communism. Call it what it was: state-run capitalism. But whatever it was, the average Russian fared better economically then than he does now.
7
When an article about US relations with a major country run by the same person for decades now, mentions one of the so-called "hands" (Nuland) more than twice as often as, you know, the guy who makes all the big policy decisions (like who next to assassinate in England) for that country, then it is a question as to what the author's real intentions are.
The thesis seems to be that if Abraham Lincoln was leader of Russia, the result would have been the same. For God's sake.
11
Indeed. Whether it's a genuinely held perspective or just the author trying too hard to find a provocative unreported angle, the result is absurd.
The suggestion that Russia would not invade the Baltics because it doesn't want to confront NATO forces is disingenuous.
The worry is that Russia invades the Baltics, the US under Trump refuses to engage, and the Europeans are paralyzed without American leadership. Result: Russia keeps the Baltics
9
Russia has no interest whatsoever in taking geographical space in the Baltics. First, the additional land has no strategic value; Russia already controls air and sea space over the whole region. And second, the RF already has substantive influence over the politics and economy of the region. The general notion of invading and taking territory is well out of date: a 20th century concept. And the location of military hardware in this region only signals how backwards NATO/Western strategy is.
4
"The general notion of invading and taking territory is well out of date:"
CRIMEA.
1
Oh please Axel from Russia! How can you even say that with a straight face when Russia already invaded the Baltics three times in the past, twice successfully? When they were willing to shoot and kill people even after the fall of the wall in one last ditch attempt to retain the Baltics? When in the writings of Russian leaders of various eras you can read that they directly wrote about salivating over the Baltics and being overjoyed at having finally gotten hold of such strategic lands long eyed?
But sure, Russia has never cared a whit about them, sure.
Tells that to the hundreds of thousands they forced to flee or imprisoned or killed at the end of WWII when they took over the Baltics once again after which they handed out the abandoned property to Russians as rewards right and left. Tell that to Baltic people banned from visiting their own coastlines which were made Russian only in many areas.
1
The Russia hands, realist, internationalist, hawkish, dovish, share a common fallacy. They overestimate their-and our-effectuality in dealing with Russia. Russia is Russia, and the Russians will do Russian things. It is in everyone’s interest to cooperate when we can, to trade and engage in cultural exchanges to the extent possible, and pursue treaties that keep us from blowing each other up. We should enjoy and admire Russia: its literature, music, philosophy, science, mathematics, bread, and ice cream. We should respect their strengths and proven capacity for endurance. But we should never expect the Russians to be other than what they are.
29
I wish I had learned more about the fundamental motives of US policy towards Russia.You can point to the bureaucratic weight on the policy. The US security establishment costs many, many billions of dollars and fighting ISIS can't justify the size of the apparatus. You need a big enemy to pay for all those mortgages. But this is more how than why of Russian policy.
What does the west really want from Russia? Control it politically? Control the resources? Is Russia the last unconquered prize for capitalism? Clearly, history did not end with the fall of the USSR.
I look further back in history and wonder why western powers beginning with Napoleon have made war on Russia (by my count including the Crimean War) five times. The current animosities go beyond suspicions that Russia is still a communist country in business suits.
Stinging this history together perhaps the most coherent explanation I see is that the acquisitive west sees Russia as large, fertile and weak. The last low hanging fruit there for the taking if only they had a Yeltsin back. Which would also explain why the west is disguising their long term goals for Russia with personalized attacks on Putin. By making Putin the object of the west's ire, the west is now justifying making economic war on Russia.
Only when we truly get at the fundamental motivations, we can have a better idea where all of this is going.
10
Putin attacks us, yet we have made it the object of our 'ire.'
Got it.
3
In what way has Putin attacked us?
2
This article, by itself, is worth half my year's subscription to the New York TImes. Thanks.
9
An excellent article on a extremely key relationship in my view. As a person who lived and worked in a senior role at a corporation in Russia for three years and witnessed all the events from 2013- 2016, this article provides a great description of our flawed policies. What it misses are some of the debates post Cold war when we ostensibly communicated to Gorbachev that we would not expand NATO - especially including Baltics/Poland - and our willingness to overlook other countries annexation of land while criticizing Russia. With my limited view Pres Putin in Russian eyes is a nationalist who wants to make Russia great again. Our policy challenge is to find a middle ground that makes America great again and absorbs Russia's 'make Russia great again' in an effective way. Clearly Syria is a losing case for our intervention and a winning case for Russia's. The average Russian has seen it as an example of Russia becoming great again. Finally our demonisation of Pres. Putin does not help. As one Russian told me they'd rather have a wolf at the door protecting them than a sheep! President Trump and his administration has his work cut out for him with the missteps made by policy planners in the past e.g. Ambassador Nuland, and the barrage of publicity on what our President did or did not do
10
America doesn't need to be made great again. It is already the wealthiest and most powerful country. Russia cannot be made great again without developing a 21st century economy, something that seems to be way down on Putin's priority list. So in my view Putin is doomed to fail.
Actually, Russia's economy is moving into the 21st century, just spend some time in any large Russian city and you will the effects on theRussian people.
1
Timothy Snyder "The Road to Unfreedom". For those of us old enough to have a grasp of our country's history with the Soviet Union/Russia this book offers a framework for understanding our present and a depth of understanding of the choices before us that is so lacking wherever we turn seeking understanding. I recommend this essential text to those who still consider citizenship a duty and responsibility, not just a status.
"....a history of disintegration can be a guide to repair. Erosion reveals what resists, what can be reinforced, what can be reconstructed, and what must be reconceived."
3
But Snyder is pushing the bogus Russia-gate claims.
Yes, they're bogus. Well at least no evidence to support them has emerged in the last 18 months. While very strong evidence points to the DNC emails being leaked, not hacked.
Therefore Snyder is not a trustworthy source.
"I recommend this essential text to those who still consider citizenship a duty and responsibility, not just a status."
And I recommend to those US citizens who care about some semblance of the Bill of Rights that the neo-McCarthyism coming from the likes of Snyder be resisted.
6
"The economic advice dispensed by the gurus of what was known as the Washington Consensus weakened an already vulnerable Russian state. Average Russian citizens saw their living standards and life expectancies drop."
Washington planners saw the end of the cold war as the beginning of what was then referred to as "third world" status for Russia and the rest of the Soviet satellite countries. These were to become low-wage countries that supported the economies of western Europe - and most of this plan was, in fact, realized.
The possibility that the citizenry might protest being unleashed from one oppressor and then sold to another oppressor was surely taken into consideration - and it was just as certainly assumed that autocratic leaders, utilizing varying levels of brutality, would "manage" the population, with US and western support, a pattern seen across the globe in developing countries with US and/or western interests.
Putin, unlike Yeltsin, didn't accept this fate for Russia, his main crime in the eyes of Washington.
Gessen fails to mention Washington's promise to Gorbachev NOT to expand NATO to the east - duplicity that North Korea's Kim would do well to consider prior to entering into negotiations with the US.
37
Yes, everything that happened in Russia (or anywhere else) emanates from Washington, right.
There was no promise not to expand NATO, only not to promote exapnsion of NATO. All those countries begged to join for a very good reason, fear of Russia based on hundreds of years of subservience. That fear has been vindicated in Georgia and Ukraine.
Washington didn't promise anything to Gorbachev
1
The ex Soviet countries were economic basket cases all on their own due to the backward state of Soviet economic stewardship. It was not the West who wished this upon them, it simply was their state in the transition period where they had to develop a modern economy that provided prosperity to their citizens. It isn't magic. It took decades of ambition and hard work. Look at the Baltics, Chechia, Poland etc. now. Doing quite well and holding their own as members of the EU.
1
Didn't Russia go off the rails after the cold war because GHWB and Bill Clinton squandered the peace dividend rather than investing it in stability in the former Soviet Union and Afghanistan?
5
No Russia went off the rails with Putin. The nation’a slide starts and continues with Putin.
3
it depends what you call 'slid'. No doubt, improvement of living standards of Russians does started with Putin.
Yeltsin allowed Clinton, the IMF and lots of hangers on who are still respected (Summers, Rubin) to loot the country. Putin wants to bring it back.
1
I remember Bill Clinton when president, or someone around him, declaring an opportunity for a 'peace dividend' after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Some few years later, I remember reading the story of the leaked cell phone call of Victoria Nuland that revealed the Americans were supporting the rebellion against the entrenched Russian-aligned Ukraine government.
I was struck by the arrogance of Nuland to be playing so close to the diplomatic / espionage fire. Indeed, as this excellent report reveals, the rest is a down-hill run into our current 'cold war' state with Russia.
At the time of the Soviet collapse, there were voices calling for a demilitarized zone for post-Soviet eastern European countries styled on the examples of Finland and Austria. Imagine a non-NATO bloc of free and independent, demilitarized area akin to Costa Rica. wow! What a notion.
I think post-Soviet Russia would have been happy to have a demilitarized zone; they wouldn't have felt threatened. There would still have been plenty of diplomatic work to be done, and there would still have been the need for a Magnitsky Act given the rampant corruption running throughout.
Basically, this story recounts how the 'peace-niks' never got there day because the war-mongerers would have none of it.
16
No doubt, members of the corporate world, including the military sector, pulled Clinton aside early in his first term and told him to forget about the peace dividend.
Peace - there's no money in it.
3
"after she was arrested in Thailand in the middle of a sex workshop and then claimed, from the back of a police van, that she possessed information that could blow the investigation into Russian meddling in the American presidential election wide open."
What Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election?
We've seen no evidence over the last 18 months to support these assertions.
The adjective "alleged" needs to precede "Russian meddling" if NY Times editors and "reporters" want to be treated seriously on this subject.
“'If you were an ambitious young Foreign Service officer after 9/11, you wanted to get sent to some reconstruction team in Afghanistan or Iraq,” says Andrew Weiss, who worked on Russia at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and now runs the Russia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “You wanted to learn Arabic. If you were ambitious, you did not want to go to the embassy in Ukraine.'”
I understand this is a quotation, but why is the NY Times allowing someone to imply that Iraq had anything to do with the events of Sept 2001. And no, the still illegal US invasion of Iraq did NOT just occur say in Oct 2001.
Correct, the destruction of the World Trade Center in NYC in Sept 2001 was certainly used to sell the illegal under US law Iraq invasion, but that came 18 months later, so linking it to the sort of legal Afghanistan war seems misrepresentative at best.
5
Since you reference George Keenan in this article, which was tremendously insightful, I would say the mess started right after World War II when the hawks took over the State Department. Although General Eisenhower had forged an excellent relationship with his Russian military counterpart, and had worked with Stalin and knew something about the Russian mindset, he allowed himself to be misadvised and fell prey to the Commie hysteria in America after the Russians got ahold of the bomb. It is ironic that thanks to the crook in the White House the Democrats are now pushing the hysteria button about Russia and allowing this whole nightmare to obscure the nuances you describe in what must be an engagement strategy with our most potent threat to world stability (assuming we can defang the American one).
8
Stalin's documented objectives after WWII were the spread of Communism worldwide and the creation of an expanded Soviet empire including the subjugation of all the eastern European states and beyond.
It's revealing to go back and read what the facts really were before one allows the facts to get blurred in wishful thinking.
The US collects enemies around the World, as it it were a hobby, to justify its Military Industrial Complex. A nastier country does not exist in this World today. It also cultivates its bad reputation and cares little that it is hated . Sad and Repulsive.
7
I found this article/report informative and fascinating. It was a bit confusing as the report involves a wide & complex cast of characters. A graphic illustrating key players and their connections and relationships would be helpful. ( I was continuously linking out to Wikipedia in attempts to keep them all straight.) I encourage you to keep writing and updating your work. I personally want to know more about the relationship/connections of the Mercers, Steve Bannon, Alexander Nix & Cambridge Analytica with Putin & the Russians. My question for you is this? Is it possible that Donald Trump is really nothing more than a puppet for a combined group of American, British and Russian Oligarchs who want to control global money laundering and the major financial markets of the planet? (Albeit... he's very uncontrollable puppet?) Is it possible that DT got involved in this saga because he was obsessed with obtaining a hotel in Moscow? Also, I would like you to weave FACEBOOK, RT and Russian Version of FACEBOOK into this story. One more thing, I would like to know more about WHAT Obama knew and WHEN he knew it. Keep up the great work. Believe it or not, there are still many Americans who can handle content that involves more than 120 characters.
4
That James Blunt bit, I assume it is simply the author taking some "poetic license", isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blunt#Military_service
His commanding officer refused the order.
3
This is one of the silliest articles I have ever read. If there is a coherent point to it, I don’t know what it is except that a bunch of Russia Hands have somehow not been able to deal with Vladimir Putin, an implacable foe of the United Stated bent on sewing domestic discord here and international discord with our allies. It’s not surprising that Kieth Gessen’s sister is Masha Gessen, a smug, inscrutable Russian ex-pat who can’t make up her mind whether to live in Russia or the United States and who regularly appears on MSNBC with a smug, deadpan demeanor telling Americans how to be Americans and whose academic credentials consist of a brief stint at the Rhode Island School of Design and Cooper Union. These two siblings seem most at home telling Americans how stupid they are while enjoying life in America. Masha might be happier in Russia except that her LGBT lifestyle would make that impossible. Listening to the Gessen family is an absolute waste of time.
8
In a way, it seems like it's no win for Trump vis a vis Russia. If he tries a concerted effort to rebuild relations with Russia, the Trump-haters no matter what'ers -- the majority of whom are so-called progressive Democrats -- will claim this is proof he was a stooge of Putin all along and part of the Grand Russia Collusion Conspiracy. But if he toughens the US into a more adversarial stance to Russia (not much stooge behavior here) including increasing the US military as mentioned in the article, he'll be condemned for reverting to the same old unproductive pattern that has plagued US-Russia from administration to administration.
23
As long as Russia is a criminal enterprise operating under the umbrella of a nation state, we should keep our distance. Trump's overtures to Russia has more to do with the money he owes Russia and the Kompromat they are probably holding over his head. Don't be foolish embracing the Bear...you more than likely will get crushed!
7
Yes, because none of Trump's comments or actions or finances or the actions of his cohorts were worthy of arousing suspicion on the part of so-called "so-called progressive Democrats" (let alone Republicans back when they were running against him and still had spines).
Besides, JW, I wouldn't jump the gun at dismissing "Grand Russia Collusion Conspiracy" just yet. That's up to you.
True...but this is his own fault to a substantial degree. His very odd unwillingness to be critical of Putin, and his even odder tendency to excoriate our allies while praising dictators in general, has made many of us very suspicious of his motivations. Oh, yeah, the lying hasn't helped.
1
One of my favorite quotes from George Kennan summarizes my views on what it is to be a Soviet/Russia hand: "The apprehension of what is valid in the Russian world is unsettling and displeasing to the American mind. He who would undertake this apprehension will not find his satisfaction in the achievement of anything practical for his people, still less in any official or public appreciation for his efforts. The best he can look forward to is the lonely pleasure of one who stands at long last on a chilly and inhospitable mountaintop where few have been before, where few can follow, and where few will consent to believe that he has been." In other words, If you've lived in Russia long enough to understand it, you can't explain it very well to others. If you haven't, you can make up any explanation you like, and people will call you an expert. I hope I am the first kind of expert, and not the second.
3
Thanks for this very excellent informative piece by Mr. Gessen. It really underscores how incredibly silly it is to try to shoehorn foreign policy workers (in all departments) into partisan boxes, instead of respecting the complexity of the problems in front of us.
6
Shock Therapy: "The economic advice dispensed by the gurus of what was known as the Washington Consensus weakened an already vulnerable Russian state. Average Russian citizens saw their living standards and life expectancies drop."
I'd appreciate more reporting on "Shock Therapy" -- how it was implemented, who was involved, who profited? To what extent did western banks enabled the rise of Russian oligarchs, who now dominate Russia's economy. For example, Deutsche Bank's shady connections with oligarchs, Trump's shady connection with Deutsche Bank.
As George Kennan famously stated in the Long Telegram: "Much depends on the health and vigor of our own society." Objectively, the current state of our society is weak and divided.
47
These are very good questions and you would be shocked by the answers. The US was heavily involved--so were the Harvard Boys led by Jeffry Sachs--the IMF and the World Bank showed up to make sure the "shock" was less than "therapeutic" to the Russian people. I don't have the space here to go through all the techniques employed but know this--the "money" to loot Russia did come from US banks--the Republic Bank of New York to be specific with a "money plane" that took off each week with crisp $100 bill in amounts up to a billion. The NY Fed had to be involved. The money was known to end up in banks controlled by the Russian Mafia. There is so much more here including connections that continue to poison US/Russia relations to this day.
Is a good precis in 'Institutional Investor' an article called 'How Harvard Lost Russia.'
I posted a link earlier but it was not accepted by the mods , here. So..
1
Axel, thank you for the link. I read the article. It was well researched and very well written and a very clear explanation of the economic transformation from state run enterprises to private ownership.
Its worth asking why the Russian people support Putin, who has amassed a personal fortune reputed to exceed $40 billion on his lifelong government salary while the average Russian household has an annual income similar to that of Portugal or Greece.
Russians understand that the oligarchs who inherited the Soviet state economy are instrumental to the Putin regime and are taking Russian wealth out of the country to London, New York, Miami, Panama, Cyprus and elsewhere as fast as they can. Donald Trump Jr reported as much, saying back in 2006 that money was flooding into the Trump empire from Russia. Maybe just a coincidence but the Trump empire shifted from debt to cash deals thereafter. Hmmm...
Its no mystery that the Russians would like to restore the Russian Empire, this time with the support of the Orthodox Church, as in czarist days. Most are willing to tolerate all of this in the hope of re-establishing some part of the Russian empire, if not by military conquest then by sowing division within NATO countries. Countries of Eastern Europe, brutally subjugated by the USSR, understand this as well.
All of this has nothing to do with old Russian hands in the US. History has shown how dreams of restored empires can be exploited by the ruthless.
23
"dreams of restored empires" - you mean like "MAGA?"
3
That question is very easy to explain why the Russians love and support Putin. If your president increase average income in your country during his tenure by a factor of 12, you would support him enthusiastically too, I am just guessing here.
2
Perhaps there is something in the Russian character that wants a strongman style of leader. Of course, many of our fellow citizens voted for Trump, so make of that what you will.
1
I know it's not remotely the point of the story, but: "But it is unclear how much influence Hill has had on current policy. One report in The Washington Post indicated that the president at one point mistook her for administrative staff and yelled at her."
Because of course he did. Of course, for Trump, a woman in the workplace is a secretary, and of course Trump yells at the administrative staff in anger.
We trusted all of this complexity to a complete idiot with no self control and no attention span and no respect at all for expertise. So really, who cares which foreign policy faction is right? It's irrelevant. Trump's just gonna Trump.
13
One of the best articles I've ever read in the NYT! Learned so much. Historical events of which I knew little, inside baseball, politics, bios, dueling philosophies (with usually missed hybrids).
Implications from a humble, civilian: (a) no one knows the right way to proceed, no matter how certain they seem on cable; (b) confirmation bias is rampant until (for some) counter-evidence becomes overwhelming; (c) nuance is needed, but paradoxically, we also need nuanced nuance as sometimes black-&-white does describe things; & (d) we better find some projects the U.S. and Russia can do together to re-build a floor level of trust.
The only good news is no one wants war between Russia and the U.S., great journalism still exists, and, even with their failures, it is at least some relief to know that usually faceless State Dept "hands" actually think about and are dedicated to addressing these issues, even now. It would be worse if they weren't.
I hope there are people at International Affairs schools, think tanks, and elsewhere working on re-inventing their field to fit the times, coming up with better ideas, working the policy debate circles to refine things, and talking to future political leaders before the latter absorb rigid ideologies.
Perhaps, Keith, in future articles could ponder some of this, look at the work of the Peace Studies field, and see if the kids at model U.N. forums are coming up with interesting possibilities.
Maybe we need more internships on fishing boats.
35
Russia has had a leader who doesn't really care about the people for almost 20 years.
Now, we also have a leader who doesn't care about the people.
Putin is trying to expand the kleptocracy franchise to our neighborhood. It's not really so nuanced.
They may not want war but they both definitely want entente! It's a distraction to demonize the "other."
One of the consistent failures of U.S. policy is the seeming inability of the prevailing voices in foreign policy to imagine things from the perspective of other nations with their own internal stresses, and to learn the intricacies of their histories before barging in to "promote democracy." Some of the policy-makers in this article have seen this. We can have a world of permanent war, and be the world's largest bully and arms dealer, or we can learn to work things out with peoples of different beliefs and lifestyles to improve chances of a successful future for our species on the planet. Instead we have oil and land destruction competitions.
19
This is an extremely boring piece by a journalist who fails to address the consequences of the cold war; one major one of which has been NATO expansion in an Eastward direction; and more generally the strands of inevitability that are inevitably latent at all times of history and instead spends pages personalizing the matter in a typical American fashion. The New York Times Magazine ctd. to be a basket case of journalism.
2
Fascinating. And this article is in the same newspaper that ridicules Trump there's a deep state out to get him? If this article's description of Nuland and her fellow "Russia hands" and her activities isn't "deep state," I don't know what is.
5
"By the same token, the Russians are amazed that we think they want to take the Baltics. They just find it incredible. They’re going to go into the Baltics — which they have no use for — and take on the world’s pre-eminent military alliance? It’s crazy.” This is inconsistent with the position that expanding NATO was a mistake. If the reason Russia won't invade the Baltics is that they would run up against NATO, isn't the expansion a success, even if it ticked off the Russians?
12
Not at all, because Russia was not untreated in Baltic from the beginning. There was nothing for them. Beside if they invaded the Baltics, wouldn't that promote at least the strain in relation with the West even if the Baltic States were not members of NATO?
There is nothing inconsistent here. Baltics are in NATO since 2004. Yet all that time they keep going on about an eminent Russian invasion there. That is indeed incredible.
You need to re-read because the position is entirely consistent. Russia has no use for the Baltics and never contemplated an invasion. Strategically, it is worthless land. I can add that - the notion of invading and taking a geographical space is quite '20th century' and quite irrelevant now. NATO forces positioned there are ludicrous and illustrate only how backwards leaning western military strategy is. Because the RF already has significant influence over Baltics politics, and the economy.
"We (Americans) didn’t do it because we wanted to hurt them (Russians). We did it because we didn’t care if it hurt them.”--Olga Oliker
The most important and telling pair of sentences in this long and excellent article. For Americans the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks instantly and retroactively turned the 1990s into the decade of bliss and happiness that preceded the miseries of the 21st century. Many Americans probably spend hours on end several days a month just watching endless YouTube videos of 1990s music and TV programs, wallowing in nostalgia and longing.
How many Americans are even dimly aware of the absolute catastrophe that was visited upon the Russian people in the 1990s, thanks in no small part to shock therapy advocates like Jeffrey Sachs? Very few, even among the alleged experts.
A major ongoing problem in the United States is that ordinary people appear to play little or no role in determining foreign policy. Elites like the "Russia hands" profiled here are part of the problem, believing that only they have the skills to handle policy. But please, you don't need to be able to read Tolstoy in the original Russian to know that hurting people in a foreign country is generally a bad idea.
Even an American public figure of great moral authority like Martin Luther King Jr. got accused of opining on matters he knew nothing about when he dared to break with the Johnson administration on the Vietnam War in 1967. But King was right, and LBJ was wrong.
45
Man, did you ever fall for it!
No "Russia hands" forced former Apparatchiks to engage in a a 10-year internecine war to grab up as many formerly state-owned assets as possible as quickly as possible and then engage in private wars with each other. Murder, mayhem, and kidnapping, etc.
Just because Gessen's article is long, and he lightly touches most of the "bases" doesn't mean it isn't seriously misleading!
1
The real question is, why do we even care? Russia served as a convenient Cold-War boogeyman to keep Americans hiding under their desks and overfunding the military. But we've seen behind the curtain now -- Russia is a geographically large, demographically mid-sized country with an economy smaller than Italy's. They simply aren't the Big Bad Bear of yore and as boogeyman they're a pretty shabby excuse.
We really need to punch Russia in the face (cut off access to international finance) so it will drop any idea of further interference in our elections, our electrical grids or anything else to do with America.
7
you can try but considering how much American people don't trust American politicians, it could backfire. Next what you know Putin becomes the American President.
Sooooooo ... Putin, Trump and his people have nothing to do with this, only academics who study literature, and intellectuals -- people that the Trumpers despise, btw.
The biases here are glaring.
10
Russia was a useful enemy/boogeyman for many years after WW2, and it's their turn again since the public no longer responds as well to various ME alleged existential threats. Ike's MIC is depending on it!
6
It's pretty easy to explain why a peaceful relationship with Russia has gone off the rails: Vladimir Putin. Despite the efforts of Bush ("I looked [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.") and Obama (the "Reset") Putin chose an aggressive and confrontational approach to the West. There as nothing the US did to precipitate Putin's aggressions in Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, meddling in the US election, or any number of activities we don't yet know about.
80
not at all. The relations were spoiled well before that through expansion of NATO and the American support for Yeltsin. If it would be just Putin, he would be not so popular.
1
But of course, Putin! How didn't I think of it? That is the explanation for all American misfortunes. If only we could figure out some way to get rid of that annoying character, everything on earth would be so much better! Just look how well it worked with Saddam and Qaddafi.
3
J. Waddell:
"There as nothing the US did to precipitate Putin's aggressions in Crimea, Ukraine, Syria,"
Is this supposed to be a joke?
No, there's no evidence Russia interfered in the 2016 US election either.
Do you not have any idea of what the US provoked in Ukraine in early 2014 and the Nazis, hardly neo, that the US used in the coup, then armed in a civil war with Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine?
Crimeans (mostly ethnic Russians) voted overwhelmingly (freely and fairly) to leave Ukraine and re, that's re, join Russia.
Syria? So you side with basically ISIS and Al Qaeda (Sunni extremists)?
You've managed to side with some really "good" characters here.
Thanks Mr. Gessen for this insightful reporting.
I have long suspected that elements of US foreign policy were heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by foreign expats living here. I would surmise that we could extrapolate on US-China relations and find similar "Chinese hands" that 'guide' foreign policy according to inscrutable motives.
We should be very wary of such people. US foreign policy //must// be carried out with an objective eye toward maximizing the benefits to this country, NOT with the aim of exacting punishment/revenge on someone else's country of origin.
Please keep up the scrutiny on this. Now more than ever we need very heavy attention on why our country appears constantly, inexorably, deliberately steered into confrontation with Russia. With the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over the world, we deserve to understand more about the "hands" that are steering the ship.
3
Gessen's article is a road map of the multiple sites visited in the United States tour to current Russian policy. What would be useful for us amateur political scientist/historians is a similar tour of Russian experiences and personalities in the sequence to their US policy, at least as one or more authorities see it. my anticipation of the outcome of such is that the picture would not be of a monolith (mixing metaphors now) but of amany faceted fractal surface with many historically tense connected junctions.
2
Russia is in the way of U.S. hegemony in the oil fields of the Mideast. That is why Russia is enemy Numero Uno of the U.S.
7
Positive relations with mother Russia are far away and have been so since WWII. Certainly the recent trend has been Russian attempts to regain its beyond-the-border satellites and even extend them down through .Afghanistan and Pakistan. That has been a goal since the days of tsars. The target is access to the Indian Ocean. It does not take a bunch of super credentialed Piled-High-and-Deep analysts to figure that out. Peter the Great announced it in the history books I have read.
Breaking news is that China has a similar goal. They want access to the Indian Ocean through Laos, Burma, Thailand and/or Cambodia. They have turned Laos into a vassal state. Burma is next. The US government cares not a whit.
7
MKR:
"Certainly the recent trend has been Russian attempts to regain its beyond-the-border satellites and even extend them down through .Afghanistan and Pakistan".
There's no evidence to support the claim that Russia is pursuing any such policy.
Why do I feel this is a setup?
4
Infused in this chronic derailment of US/Russian relationship are the very real (and unfortunate) results of human ego, power and greed as evidenced by the behavior of politicians, academics and business people.
Two richly vibrant cultures and nations being jerked about by small, terribly flawed individuals like Putin, Trump and their lackeys seeking court favor.
Pathetic.
5
If you were thinking the Iran deal was horse manure. The Russian deal is even worse. That deal is the one where Russian oligarchs are allowed to play around the world, plying their money. Especially in this country and especially New York with its large Russian population. These Russian business men have been in this country all under the watchful eye of the real Don, a Certain V.I. Putin-The dneiper don, who knows what all his businesses are doing at all times. Especially the ones in the West. The fact that trump was so easily compromised was no surprise to the dneiper don, trumpsky is vanity with gold plating. Easily subdued. Know of any American businesses plying their trades in the Russian empire? Not likely. But somehow their money and subterfuge is welcome here, in Britain, especially Italy and their favorite of all Cyprus and turkey. I hope our new CIA director is up to snuff on all of our Russian friends here, not just the terrorists behind every bush that have so fixated the American fear and loathing. Don’t forget about the Chinese. They are in bed under the covers with the dneiper don this very moment.
4
Under Putin Russia is a global criminal enterprise with untaxed funds and cooperative banks. U.S. politicians (that's you GOP) should get savvy and readdress money corrupting governance. There is very real danger in the current collusion in Washington.
10
Whom Russia should pay taxes for their own funds? The US?
This is a brilliant and insightful piece and would be a fine core for a book on the subject.
The one thing this thoughtful piece could perhaps emphasize more is the unique and existential importance of the US-Russian relationship: This is the only bilateral international relationship that, if it collapses, could detonate thousands of nuclear weapons over the cities of this planet. Peaceful relations with Russia ought to be an absolutely central fixation for all US officials — for all our sakes.
7
Why the relationship "has gone off the rails". Seriously?
I really find this as grossly offensive and greatly dismissive of the repeated attempts by the US to resolve the relations with Russia.
"That society now looks sick. The absence of nuance on the Russia question — the embrace of Russia as America’s new-old supervillain — is probably best understood as a symptom of that sickness."
It takes two to tango and the implied appeal to mollifying Russia as if it is someone's fragile and sensitive grandmother is what is sick.
Also very amusing that a few anti tank missiles for Ukraine are a threat of escalation when Russia has encamped an entire army (said to be the second largest in Europe) staffed and supplied from Russia INSIDE Ukraine is truly nonsensical.
8
The pro-Russia bias here is disturbing. What was the NYTimes thinking? Russia is far too powerful a country to blame the United States for anything. The soviet mentality that persists in Russia will poison (so to speak) whatever Russia touches with no help from outside.
Of course, the United States and Russia are both fundamentally flawed societies. They are two sides of the same coin and richly deserve one another. Both nations have failed miserably to govern themselves effectively or to achieve any quality of life for the majority of their citizens.
6
That's why it is so refreshing. Usually, the articles about Russia (as matter of fact, about any natter) have pro-American bias. It is important to hear other side to avoid the mistakes.
1
@yulia
I think Mr. Gessen would not self-identify as "the other side" in this debate.
But you're right, that is how he comes across.
There's an inherent bias toward Russia in this "feature" whether intended consciously or unconsciously due to the author's origins.
You will note that the author never questions the legitimacy of Russia's revanchist attitude to its former empire-CCCP appendages. The expansion of NATO is only expressed as how it might concern Russia and never addressed as giving agency to the sovereign states whose own interests might be best served by joining a mutual defense pact that reduces the threat of a massive army resident in their immediate neighbor, Russia.
This is repeated with the Georgian and Ukrainian color revolutions. The independent states are denied agency but rather given the assumption they are Russia's business not sovereign states pursuing democratic reforms. Color revolutions are presented as a threat that isn't questioned.
The supposed farce of Russia invading the Baltics is refuted by the fact that that is exactly what Russia's former incarnation the CCCP executed and occupied for 50 years.
After cIting multiple transnational excesses by Russia.. we get "Understanding how to get out of this mess will require understanding how WE got into it."
This is the thesis of the entire article. Russia has evolved into an autocratic revanchist troublemaker with a chip on its shoulder, interfering in and subverting all its neighbor's politics and that somehow transforms into how WE got in such a mess.
Russia needs more democracy and less autocracy.
17
Your confusion appears to be the same as one of the "Russia hands"' described in this article. Let me explain something to you - Russia is not USSR, it is not ruled by Communist Party. That seems to be a very difficult concept for many Americans to grasp.
4
Russia is the USSR without its appendages but still with the institutional memory which can be observed in its foreign policy bullying of other nations, it's interference in the politics of other nations and the techniques of propaganda and espionage techniques. Communism was a mask for totalitarianism, now there is autocracy with oligarchic and state capitalism.
My point here is that a lot of what constituted the behavior and techniques of the USSR remain in Russia as a legacy not forgotten.
1
Amazing column - thank you for your perspective, and thank you to the NYT for publishing this even though it largely runs counter to their own hawkishness on Russia.
The missteps and escalations made by both sides have the quality of a Greek tragedy. Both sides, doing what they perceive to be in their best interests, work to create the worst of all possible worlds for themselves and, especially, everyone caught in the middle.
We could be living in a less dangerous world now. If only a few concessions were made in the early 2000s, such as continuing to respect the ABM treaty, and a blanket ban on NATO expansion to former Soviet countries (including the Baltics, but not including non-former Soviet Eastern Europe). If only the internationalist zeal for converting the whole world to liberal democracy had been tempered by more realism. If only Putin had not overreacted to the Ukraine crisis by invading the country, saturating the airwaves with propaganda, and meddling in US elections. If only...
Now we face Cold War II, but without the restraint that comes with each side recognizing the other as a roughly equal power. Trump's incompetence and the Democrats' new extreme anti-Russia platform, combined with Putin's chest-thumping authoritarian nationalism, mean that things will be much worse than in the days of Bush and Obama when there was at least a desire to avoid conflict on both sides. Things are quickly getting as dangerous as they ever were in Cold War I.
3
Internally weak governments are dangerous things in international relations. Russia in particular is inherently paranoid -- because of its location and its history. The US in particular is more open to stupid acts -- structurally because of its democracy and these days in particular because of you-know-who. In this context, the best strategy may be to try for maintenance of the status quo, sometimes known as "don't rock the boat." With Russia (unlike with China), time is on our side.
1
This was an excellent and highly nuanced article that should remind policy makers that few if any nation states are “evil’ and most are driven by a complex set of motivations that derive from their own internal systems of power and perceived national self-interest. A nation’s policies can’t be viewed isolated from its own internal history, nor from the history of its own interactions with other nations. I think this should always argue for a large dose of humility and perspective in international relations. Gessen’s deep dive into this background and the personalities who helped shape the current state of our relationship with Russia is like a splash of cold water on a fevered public. It’s not medicine - but it’s a reminder that some urgent and rational care is needed to address our relationship with Russia. Unfortunately, the current national security leadership in the White House may not have the necessary wisdom and talent for the job.
70
Well, one nation state is undeniably and obviously evil. And it os not Russia. Guess which one is it.
Totally agree.
The seats on the train of history face backwards. You can only look back at what you just passed by but never at what you will be passing by next.
This is a nice review of what happened in the tumultuous years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although it is hard to pin all the blame on any one decision, a large share of the blame must be placed on Clinton's decision to expand NATO eastward. The former countries of the Soviet bloc essentially blackmailed America into expanding NATO eastward, The Russians viewed such an expansion as dancing on the grave of a vanquished enemy. A decision to collaborate with the newly formed state of Russia would have been far more beneficial in tamping down future conflagrations.
5
Loved the article, but I have to offer a less exciting counter thesis: Russia-US (and Russia-European) relations are in a bad state not because of US missteps (of which, of course, there have been many) but because Russian foreign policy is Russian domestic policy. When a spy is poisoned in Salisbury or a chemical attack kills forty Syrians or a Russian flag is removed from a former consulate in Seattle, Russian TV spends the next two weeks (or two months) weaving the stories into a conspiracy about a monolithic “West” moving one step closer to its takeover of the sovereign motherland. This is how the Russian regime maintains domestic legitimacy despite four years of declining living standards (and six years of stagnation still to come). That doesn’t make the situation any less dangerous--there are certainly high level Russian officials who believe in their conspiracy theories and who, presumably, are prepared to act on them as if they were true--but it’s hard to see how any change in American policy would change the situation. The Russian state under its current leadership needs enemies more than it needs partners, and it has done everything in its power to cultivate enemies.
90
Michael, I think it's a fair assessment. Still I think the American missteps line up with the "global cop" perception of the US too well, feeding right into the paranoia and conspiracy theories. In the end, did the sanctions that "the West" imposed on Russia do anything to weaken the position of Putin's government inside the country? How is retracting diplomacy supposed to help? As I understand, these actions only add to the consternation among the Russian common folk, and these sentiments are further stoked by the relentless Russian media spin of course. This is a lose-lose situation.
No two people are ever going to agree about why Russia is the way it is. As for what common Russians think, this is the best I can offer; it’s the Putin supporter paragraph from an article I wrote in the city of Asbest in March:
"The freezing cold gold-toothed sixty-something man selling frozen cranberries and dried fruit from the only open stall outside the farmer’s market confirmed in a thick Caucasian accent that he intended “to vote for Putin, of course. Who else is there? Zhirinovsky is crazy, and what am I going to do, vote for Sobchak? Ha!” The gold-toothed babushka selling raw milk on the sidewalk along Prospect Lenina supported Putin because, “Yes, he’s a thief, but who else is there, Sobchak? Ha! Putin will keep the youth in line.” The garbage woman sorting out the plastic at seven o’clock in the morning on election day said she would vote for Putin because, “What? Vote for Sobchak? No thanks. Putin is a strong politician. There’s no war.” Finally, the tall lean drunk septuagenarian in the fur hat and his stocky younger drunk friend in the knock-off Adidas knit cap combined to make sense of it all: although “Medvedev [expletive] goat crook whore. Everything here is horseradish,” they could not just stay home on election day “and leave Russia without a president!? That’s impossible,” and so, “Yes, I voted for Putin. For who else? There is no one else. What, vote for Sobchak so she can give everything back to Ukraine? [Expletive] off on a [expletive], young man.”
The coverage by the Russian media the poison or chemical attack is actually defensive, considering the coverage of the Western media of anything that concerns Russia. It is as bad as the coverage of Iraqi WMD just before the war, when slimmest evidence are exaggerated and critical questions are brushed aside. No wonder Russians suspect a deep motive of such coverage. After all coverage if Iraqi WMD ended up in the American invasion
I reject the thesis that Russia is just a misunderstood teenager and all that needs to happen is a more nuanced approach to dealing with them and low and behold, things are so much better and the teenager is now a well adjusted member of the community.
This is nonsense. Russia is not a misunderstood teenager. It carries on the genes of a deeply cynical and hypocritical nuclear power whose intentions were diametrically opposed to those of free and democratic societies.
It's time for Russia to be treated as an adult who must take responsibility for its actions and exhibit the maturity required in a world community of interdependence and mutual respect. So far, this has not happened.
Are the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of MH17 by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, the subversion of the domestic electoral system of the US and the use of chemical weapons on individuals in another sovereign state the signs of a responsible entity in the international community?
No, they aren't. Despite all the putting down of the US approach toward Russia, there is no corresponding critique of Russia's deplorable approach to its place in the international community.
When you have what amounts to a juvenile delinquent's actions to deal with, you have to recognize that there are some things that simply cannot be tolerated if that person is going to be allowed into the community of adults.
It's time for Russia to grow up and be a responsible adult.
143
Treating a country like a teenager is far from the author is advocating. This is exactly the attitude that seems to have been prevalent in the US government and even in the society. The author articulates the problem with that view. The US may try to play the "responsible adult" in the room, establish sanctions, preach democracy, support orange revolutions near Russian borders. What we are getting for these efforts is more anti-US and anti-West backlash inside Russia and more paranoia.
Russia is not a juvenile delinquent, it is in fact a grown country that is a lot older than the United States. In Russia's view at least, the manipulative behaviors are justified by protecting Russia's economic and security interests. I think perhaps the first thing that needs to happen in the US is broad acknowledgement that our neocon interventionist policies have not been working out so great. A lot of the US going around and "fixing" other countries has done more harm than good. Ask a Russian how much they liked "perestroika" and the economic fallout that ensued!
If you wish to stick with the country-person analogy, Russia is a highly intelligent, devious, and well armed adult with a prominent (and not completely off-base) paranoid streak. In this analogy, the US is another well-armed adult, a peer, not a law enforcement squad.
6
Thank you for your comment. I fully support your viewpoint and I find your presentation of cynical Russia as a liable adult vs. 'misunderstood teenager' to be very apposite and accurate. Kremlin is very ruthless when it comes to respecting its neighbors or human rights of its own people. It always been like this for centuries. Nothing ever changed in this aspect. Russia always rates aspiration for agreements as a weakness, so all the 'deals' with Russians, as Otto von Bismarck once noted,"are not worth the paper on which they are written". For some reason when analysts write about relations with Russia they never remember about interests of other countries in the region, like those people do not exist or have no rights to have their own interests and opinions. While, as it's known from history, those countries always been in danger to be invaded by the savage Empire. But nobody cares. The US and EU care, consider, and remember only about Russia's interests. While the thing is that no Imperium ever would stop in its aggressive claims. So you're right saying that "some things cannot be tolerated" and Kremlin should be treated with appropriate sternness. Especially considering this 'adult' possessing dangerous weapons.
5
The problem is not that Russia is a teenager, but the problem is the huge US ego, that forced Americans to believe that they are above the laws, including international. It would be funny if it wouldn't be so sad, to hear how Americans condemn Russian invasions while America are invading countries right and left, creating crisis after crisis and has no appetite for solving the problems it created. How about America to grow up and to stop whining about evil Russians who dare to protects its interests and to start to take responsibility for its own mistakes and actions.
3
Thanks.
I've always wondered why Keith Gessen didn't get the platform that his more excitable sister Masha Gessen so often gets. It's good to see his reasonable perspective given wider distribution.
27
While I disagree with Mr. Gessen's tendency to accept as proven fact certain hotly-contested viewpoints, the NYT's publishing of an article such as his is a most welcome development, almost a relief that a "middle-ground" viewpoint is still acceptable to the Times.
For those interested in reading (or listening to podcasts) of a knowledgeable 'Russia hand' (a scholar of Russian history for forty years), let me recommend Prof. Stephen Cohen of Princeton and NYU to you.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia looked forward to cooperating with and joining the Western order. But instead of supporting this effort which could have led to a unique golden era of world peace, we remained suspicious of Russia. Besides offering poor and inadequate economic advice and support, we scorned, humiliated, and threatened this proud country with which we had shared superpowers status. We could never see anything from the Russian perspective and lacked an understanding of the complex historic, political, religious, and ethnic tensions of the region of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Instead our policies were driven to a significant extent by the influence of Eastern Europeans and Eastern European emigres promoting narrow parochial policies which were no longer realistic and did not serve the broader interest of the United States and the rest of the world. We seemed to have forgotten the lessons learned from the end of World War One that you don't pursue policies that humiliate and destabilize former adversaries, but instead as we did after World War Two should have made a massive effort to create a framework for peace and political and economic cooperation based on shared values. It is important in our efforts to extract our country from current political tensions with Russia to understand how these tensions arose following the end of the Cold War.
162
This is nonsense. Russia, under Putin was simply unwilling to accept its place in the world as a has been superpower that had nuclear weapons but not much else besides oil and gas revenues. The West welcomed Russia into the community of nations as a member of the G8 and the opportunity to partake of all the advantages that cooperation with advanced economies and technologies would bestow. Putin instead pouted and stomped his feet insisting that Russia be treated as the old superpower who could act with impunity and suffer no consequences. He was wrong and still is.
11
I couldn’t agree more. Post USSR, people forget, that Russia has wondered about joining NATO, and yet, the responsenfrom the West was - Keep Russia out and everyone else in. The west enabled Yelstin even as the Russian people suffered, and expanded right to the very foot steps of the USSR and beyond. Why wouldn’t Russia, at some point, push back? Then there was the intellectual arrogance of a previous President demeaning Russia by calling it a failing power - which, even if true, shouldn’t have been said. Let’s be honest, the blowback on the US of that comment has been far worse than calling some African countries “s...holes”, and now, not only do we have a Realpolitik problem with Russia, we have an emotional problem as well.
4
We "remained suspicious of Russia" because there was money to be made. Without the specter of a Big Bad Bear, politicians worried that American taxpayers would resist further inflation of our very profitable military and its industries.
1