• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Russians Think We're Wrecking the World on Purpose

OGBDeacon07

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
73
Location
Silicon Valley
Interesting perspective:

The Russians Think We’re Wrecking the World on Purpose

“In Russia, most analysts, politicians and ordinary citizens believe in the unlimited might of America, and thus reject the notion that the US has made, and continues to make, mistakes in the [Middle East]. Instead, they assume it’s all a part of a complex plan to restructure the world and to spread global domination,” writes Fyodor Lukyanov on the Al Monitor website today. Lukyanov, who chairs Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, laments what he derides as a “conspiracy theory.” Nonetheless, he reports, President Vladimir Putin and the Russian elite think that the United States is spreading chaos as part of a diabolical plot for world domination:

From Russian leadership’s point of view, the Iraq War now looks like the beginning of the accelerated destruction of regional and global stability, undermining the last principles of sustainable world order. Everything that’s happened since — including flirting with Islamists during the Arab Spring, U.S. policies in Libya and its current policies in Syria — serve as evidence of strategic insanity that has taken over the last remaining superpower.

Russia’s persistence on the Syrian issue is the product of this perception. The issue is not sympathy for Syria’s dictator, nor commercial interests, nor naval bases in Tartus. Moscow is certain that if continued crushing of secular authoritarian regimes is allowed because America and the West support “democracy,” it will lead to such destabilization that will overwhelm all, including Russia. It’s therefore necessary for Russia to resist, especially as the West and the United States themselves experience increasing doubts.​

It’s instructive to view ourselves through a Russian mirror. The term “paranoid Russian” is a pleonasm. “The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards. A deadly miscommunication arises from this asymmetry. The Russians cannot believe that the Americans are as stupid as they look, and conclude that Washington wants to destroy them,” I wrote in 2008 under the title “Americans play monopoly, Russians chess.” Russians have dominated chess most of the past century, for good reason: it is the ultimate exercise in paranoia. All the pieces on the board are guided by a single combative mind, and every move is significant. In the real world, human beings flail and blunder. For Russian officials who climbed the greasy pole in the intelligence services, mistakes are unthinkable, for those who made mistakes are long since buried.

From a paranoid perspective, it certainly might look as if Washington planned to unleash chaos. The wave of instability spreading through the Middle East from Syria is the direct result of American actions. I wrote yesterday in Asia Times Online:

Syria’s Sunni majority started an insurgency against the minority Alawite government of Basher al-Assad in response to the ill-named Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa. America’s abrupt dismissal of its long-ally Hosni Mubarak and the ascendancy of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood emboldened Syria’s long-suffering Sunni majority to stake its claim to power. Like Mubarak, the Assads suppressed the Muslim Brothers, but far more viciously, leveling the Sunni town of Hama in 1982 with casualties estimated at between 20,000 and 40,000.

Western policy thus provoked Syria’s civil war. The prospect of a Sunni fundamentalist regime in Egypt under American patronage, the emergence of the ”Sunni Awakening” in Iraq during the Petraeus ”surge”, and the victory of Western-backed Sunni jihadists over Libya’s Gaddafi, gave Syria’s Sunnis little choice. America’s fecklessness with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, moreover, gave Saudi Arabia and Turkey strategic reasons to fund and arm various branches of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.

In this tightly scripted tragedy, America’s blundering provided the impetus for each step, except, of course, for the blundering of the European Union. The Europeans forced Assad to undertake agricultural reforms among the conditions for a new trade treaty, forcing tens of thousands of small farmers off their land in the Sunni Northeast of the country, into tent cities around Damascus.

Iran responded to the Sunni insurgency in the obvious way, by sending Revolutionary Guard regulars as well as its Lebanese-based Hezbollah auxiliaries into Syria to fight for its ally, the Assad regime. Iran’s involvement prevents the loosely organized insurgent coalition from toppling a minority regime.

The depleted ranks of the regular Syrian army will be replenished with Iranian soldiers or surrogates. The Alawite regime will continue to commit atrocities in order to convince its own base as well as the Syria’s Christian, Kurdish and Druze minorities that they must fight to the death because Sunni vengeance would be horrible. Saudi Arabia will continue to filter jihadists and weapons into Syria and Turkey will continue to provide logistical support.​

Could the Americans really have been such idiots?, the Russians ask. Of course we could. George Bush and his advisers actually believed that we were going to bring democracy to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. The Russians understood matters differently. Fyodor Lukyanov writes:

In the summer 2006, when then-President George W. Bush came to St. Petersburg for a summit of the “Big Eight,” an interesting dialogue took place between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a news conference. Bush drew attention to the challenges posed by democratic freedoms, especially freedom of the press, in Russia — and then noted that things had gotten much better in Iraq. Putin immediately responded, “Well, we really would not want the kind of democracy they have in Iraq.” The room filled with applause, and not everyone heard Bush’s response: “Just wait, it’s coming.” What Bush had in mind was increased stability in Iraq, but it sounded more ominous: you’ll see, democracy will be brought to you as well…​

If the Russians sound mad, consider this: there is another substantial body of opinion that sees an evil conspiracy behind American blundering in the Middle East, and it votes for Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I am not suggesting that Sen. Rand Paul is a paranoid, I hasten to clarify: I have never met the man and don’t presume to judge his state of mind. But his popularity stems in no small measure from conspiracy theorists who think that the U.S. government really is planning to criss-cross the continental United States with killer drones and pick off American citizens on their home soil. A lot of the same people think that America invaded Iraq on behalf of the oil companies (who would make a lot more money if Iraq were zapped by space aliens) or by the Israelis (who never liked the project from the outset). A fair sampling of such paranoia gets posted on the comments section of this site.

Thus we have the strangest pair of bedfellows in modern politics, the Russians and the rubes. Try to explain to them that George W. Bush was a decent and well-intentioned man without a clue as to the consequences of his actions, and they will dismiss it as disinformatsiya. Tell them that the New York Times and the Weekly Standard both believed in the Arab Spring as the herald of a new era of Islamic democracy, and they will see it as proof of a conspiracy embracing both the Democratic and Republican establishments. How, the paranoids ask, could two administrations in succession make so many blunders in succession? It stretches credibility. I wish it were a conspiracy. The truth is that we really are that dumb.

The Bush quote above is bit off from the video I found:
 
People have made the same argument about Wellman, Hatch, and the BOT.
 
The article draws attention to an important difference between the way Americans and their leaders think and the way Russians and their leaders think. Namely that Americans value Democracy, and the idea of spreading Democracy has become an important element in U.S. foreign and national security policies; while the Russians don't value Democracy, and ideas of spreading Democracy have no place in their concepts of foreign policy. The views of both are rooted in their different understandings of their own histories and of their places in the world.

Based on our contrasting historical experiences, we should not be surprised that we and the Russians have difficulties understanding each other.

Please note the relative ease with which Russians, when confronted with a difficulty (in this case Syria), immediately assume a conspiratorial view of history.

The funny part is, of course, that the Soviets tended to think that the US was led by idiots all the way up to the end of the Cold War. They were always trying to figure out if American behavior was just some evil American policy to rule the world, or if Americans were just dumb. The Soviets never could figure it out, and they lost.

In the immortal words of Captain Renault in Casablanca, "You must not underestimate blundering Americans, Major Strasser. I was with them in 1918, when they blundered all the way to Berlin."
 
The article draws attention to an important difference between the way Americans and their leaders think and the way Russians and their leaders think. Namely that Americans value Democracy, and the idea of spreading Democracy has become an important element in U.S. foreign and national security policies; while the Russians don't value Democracy, and ideas of spreading Democracy have no place in their concepts of foreign policy. The views of both are rooted in their different understandings of their own histories and of their places in the world.

Based on our contrasting historical experiences, we should not be surprised that we and the Russians have difficulties understanding each other.

Please note the relative ease with which Russians, when confronted with a difficulty (in this case Syria), immediately assume a conspiratorial view of history.

The funny part is, of course, that the Soviets tended to think that the US was led by idiots all the way up to the end of the Cold War. They were always trying to figure out if American behavior was just some evil American policy to rule the world, or if Americans were just dumb. The Soviets never could figure it out, and they lost.

In the immortal words of Captain Renault in Casablanca, "You must not underestimate blundering Americans, Major Strasser. I was with them in 1918, when they blundered all the way to Berlin."

US policies were down the list of why the USSR disintegrated. Lech Walesa and the Pope were much more important as was their debacle in Afghanistan.

They also did something that no dictatorship can survive. They educated their people.

Another factor was their determination to show their best and brightest were better than the West's. This led to many Soviets interacting with people in the west and seeing what their work got them.

We were a part but nothing like we think we were. In fact, many Russians think we prolonged the USSR with the Cold War by keeping so many people employed in the military and intelligence arenas.
 
US policies were down the list of why the USSR disintegrated. Lech Walesa and the Pope were much more important as was their debacle in Afghanistan.

They also did something that no dictatorship can survive. They educated their people.

Another factor was their determination to show their best and brightest were better than the West's. This led to many Soviets interacting with people in the west and seeing what their work got them.

We were a part but nothing like we think we were. In fact, many Russians think we prolonged the USSR with the Cold War by keeping so many people employed in the military and intelligence arenas.

Yeah I knew a guy five or so years ago who was doing his master's thesis on how event's in the soviet bloc undermined Russia's hegemony over E. Europe and played a contributing factor in the dissolution of the USSR...one basic premise is the same that you're also implicitly alluding to; Reagan doesn't deserve nearly so much credit as he is typically given in the U.S.
 
US policies were down the list of why the USSR disintegrated. Lech Walesa and the Pope were much more important as was their debacle in Afghanistan.

They also did something that no dictatorship can survive. They educated their people.

Another factor was their determination to show their best and brightest were better than the West's. This led to many Soviets interacting with people in the west and seeing what their work got them.

We were a part but nothing like we think we were. In fact, many Russians think we prolonged the USSR with the Cold War by keeping so many people employed in the military and intelligence arenas.

Nothing in my post says anything about why the Soviet Union collapsed. Why do you insist on another incoherent polemic about matters irrelevant to my post and this thread? My post and the article were about perceptions, or misperceptions, and about their persistence, and not about why the Soviets lost the Cold War.
 
That article is pretty much a giant pile of horseshit. And quoting Lukyanov? Jesus.


There's certainly huge differences in the way that Russia and the United States view the world, especially the current government in Russia. I see it every day, my wife works in it every day. But that article is like writing a long article describing all Americans as crazy people afraid of a massive UN invasion because you listened to some extremists.
 
Is [Redacted] a Russian name?

I'm pretty sure it's Czech (or Slovak, which is very similar). That's just a straight up guess though based on how it's spelled. I wonder how you'd confirm that ... ask him about his family history?
 
Isn't America wrecking itself domestically every couple months through fake budget crisis? Saying we do the same thing abroad seems like solid analysis not conspiracy theory. America's post WW2 foreign policy is to arm a military group and then two decades later that group is our sworn enemy. We don't have 9/11 if our military doesn't train Al Quaida in the 1980s. America's foreign policy seems to perpetuate wars in an era where things would naturally resolve diplomatically.
 
Last edited:
Real talk, Russia: US foreign policy ineptitude, born of a stunning systemic lack of institutional historical knowledge, is not some grand master plan. It's simply a product of our isolated---and therefore goepolitically-under-educated---government. See, every decade in US history.
 
Back
Top