Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Russia, part two
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Foreign Policy
Google
CruisingRam
Many conservatives claim that Ronald Reagan helped end or actually ended the cold war, to which most Russians say "Who?" LOL

Russia is an ancient culture, with very old patterns, and is influenced in very small ways by outside interests, but once again, I am posting this somewhat for my Russian cousin, to get your ideas and debates on this subject.

I am sorry my cousin does not join, but they pay differently for internet usage and this is a luxory he can't really afford or at the very least, defend to his mother LOL
Google
Jaime
What is your question for us to debate? PM me or a mod so we can get this back open. flowers.gif
Jaime
Here is our question to debate:
QUOTE
Did the US or any other country influence recent russian history, specifically the breakup of the soviet union


Enjoy!
smile.gif


Edited for grammar - J
aquapub
The cold war was a spending contest. This contest had two planks:

1) Arm yourself until the other guy drops
2) Indoctrinate as many countries as possible until the other guy drops.

We had the resources, Reagan continued to use them, the Soviets dropped. End of story.

Yes, Reagan ended Russia's communism, (dictatorship) but it was merely by bankrupting them.
CruisingRam
Most Russians of course will laugh at that notion, and if you ever visited Russia, you would believe the same. Gorbachev had a more world view of things than most of his predeccesors, and had an interest in ending the (then) current power structure.

First, you have to realize that even though they called themselves "communist", they had no essential change in law or culture since the czars, and in fact, there was no meaningful change in Russian law from Nicholas to Lenin to Stalin and so on. So some short term president "outspending" Russia had no appreciable effect on a corrupt system 1300 years old.

My Mom-in-law was a lawyer there, the chief prosecuter for the entire region of Tartastan, and my aunt-in-law is the current finance minister for that region. So they are pretty in the know about the old regime and new regime as you can imagine.

I actually once suffered from the same delusion that the US had some effect on the "downfall of communism"- and the mirth I get from poeple when I mention that in Russia is a pretty good joke there LOL

The real power structure change came more because of the internal politics and economics with the rise of the "Oligarchs"- the power behind the power so to speak. Brezhinski (sp), the vice president under Yeltsin, had been running things clear back to Brezhnev in a larger and larger fashion, and opening up to foreign markets became part of thier personal fortune, and if you watch the struggle with Putin right now, you can see some of the power struggles that go on.

Reagan having anything to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union is really just right wing wishful thinking.
aquapub
I have studied Russian history at length. I know a great deal about them from the serfs to the cossacks(spelling)to the Tartars, to the times of trouble lead by Czar Theodore, to the fall of Czar Nikki.

I also know that most Russians blame Gorbechov for "letting the country go."

What I also know is that it was, in the end, a long bankrupted economy that killed his regime, and it would have at least happened a hell of a lot slower, if at all if Reagan hadn't been pushing the competition.
CruisingRam
The best way to study Russia is to go there. My cousin has studied US history, and you will laugh at some of his notions of US issues as well.

My point of this thread is, IMO , no country outside Russia really effected Russian history since Peter the GReat toured Europe and learned ship building LOL

Even WW2 didn't really have long term negative effects it should have against STalin, and if anything bankrupted that country, that is it! Hell, they had famines due to Krushev, with the whole country starving, and it wasn't NEAR that bad as when Gorbachev and Andropov ran the country, so if it wasn't done in by huge famines and poeple starving to death, it certainly wasn't a minor economic bump that made it fall LOL
aquapub
I think you are putting way too much stock in the justifying effects visiting Russia had on your views of it. I've read about the condition of their budget by the time Gorbechov was leaving, and several times, I saw it broken down to military spending vs. everything else.

Military spending wrecked the Russian economy, prompting the revolution. Reagan had a huge role in their collapse. LOL<---???? huh.gif
CruisingRam
Military spending was PROPPING UP the economy, and kept many of the population employed. Watch the history channel on spy issues sometime, there is a great episode detailing one of the great blunders of US intelligence and the over-estimation of the Russian military. The corrupt economy, which, BTW, is still the main problem with the Russian economy, believe me, we have a helluva time with this trying to start a tourist agency to Kazan, is the main reason for the collapse.
Thomas
QUOTE
The real power structure change came more because of the internal politics and economics with the rise of the "Oligarchs"- the power behind the power so to speak. Brezhinski (sp), the vice president under Yeltsin, had been running things clear back to Brezhnev in a larger and larger fashion, and opening up to foreign markets became part of thier personal fortune, and if you watch the struggle with Putin right now, you can see some of the power struggles that go on.


The story of the Oligarchs fascinates me. Have you ever heard of the theory that the collapse of the USSR wasn't as "spontanious" as many people presume? For example, the sudden rise of the students in East Germany, would have been impossible even in 1989 without the support of the Stazi, the East German secret police.

My own research concurs with the idea that by the eighties forward-looking Chekists (in the omnipotent KGB) and leading Communist Party politicans had come to the conclusiion that on current trends, the USSR would collapse in ten to twenty years time. This younger generation of the Communist Party elite, brought up on Western music, clothes etc were by the eighties starting to move into positions of real importance. These had long given up on the Marxist-Leninist faith and based on Russian patrioism want to end a failed idealogy which was hampering the Soviet Unions efforts to keep up with the West.

Thus the reform wing of the KGB, well connected with high ranking Communists who had "seen the light" helped bring to power Gorbechav and his reform programme. It soon became clear that the attempt to reform the system had failed and so the powerbrokers behind-the-scenes, including Boris Berezovsky and other "oligarchs" made sure that the great democratic revolutions occured in the West. They did this through the shadowry and powerful place of the secret police structures within the satellite nations, which worked with the KGB to bring down the old system.

QUOTE
b. 1952

KGB operative, born in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). A member of the Komsomol, he entered Leningrad State University's law department in 1970. Before graduating in 1975, he was already recruited into the KGB. Putin spent the next five years with the KGB in Leningrad, mainly spying on foreign visitors. In the early 1980's, he was summoned to Moscow for training as an elite foreign intelligence officer, and was assigned to Dresden, East Germany in 1985. From 1985 to 1990, he recruited professional Westerners and East Germans to steal Western technology and NATO secrets. In 1987, he was awarded the Bronze Medal by the East German Stasi security service. In 1989/90, he moved back to Leningrad to work as assistant to the rector of the university, dealing with "international relations." This was a cover for his continued KGB duties, recruiting or spying on students. In 1991, he supposedly quit the KGB, at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, to work as aide to Leningrad mayor, and one his old law professors, Anatoliy Sobchak. In the early days of reform, Putin headed a committee to woo overseas companies to the re-named St. Petersburg. Putin's other roles in the city administration remain unclear. After Sobchak was defeated in 1996, Putin left for Moscow, where he was appointed "Deputy Head of the Management Department in the Presidential Administration." Over the next two years, he was rapidly promoted through various levels of the Russian government, and in August 1998, he was appointed the Director of the FSB, the domestic intelligence branch of the continuing KGB. In March 1999, he was named the "Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation." According to Spanish Intelligence, he made five secret illegal visits to Boris Berezovsky's villa in the first six months of 1999. In August 1999, he became "prime minister" and was named as Yeltsin's successor in the 2000 "presidential elections". In September 1999, a series of bombings ripped through Moscow, killing hundreds of civilians. [The bombs were planted by the KGB to justify a military response in Chechenia. This was deliberately timed to coincide with the upcoming elections.] Putin immediately blamed the Chechen rebels, and he ordered a major air and ground assault on rebel forces in Chechenia and Dagestan. By December, his popularity was at an all-time high after blanket media coverage of Russia's military victories in Chechenia. On 19 December, his newly-formed Unity Bloc won the largest number of seats in the State Duma "elections". On 31 December, Boris Yeltsin steps down and Putin becomes "acting president". On 25 January 2000, the CIS "heads of state" endorsed Putin's "presidential" candidacy. After a constant stream of sycophantic media propaganda, he was "elected" in the first round on 26 March 2000, with 53% of the vote (allegedly!).
.

Boris Berezovsky and other leading Communist Party Insiders carved up Russias privitisation boom during the early nineties and carved out huge private economic empires. To learn more on the connections between the chief oligarch during the nineties and Boris Yeltsin, see http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/1/42928

QUOTE
"Among the Family members are his daughter Tatyana Dyachenko, along with oil tycoon Boris Berezovski, Roman Abramovich, Kremlin Chief of Staff Alexandr Voloshin, presidential ghost writer Valentin Yumashev, and others. These individuals are secure only as long as Yeltsin is alive and in office. A compelling inducement for them to use whatever means to stay in power. They also don’t wish to lose title to their opulent dachas in the Russian countryside and elsewhere.

This explains their animosity toward such possible candidates as Luzhkov, Primakov, Zuganov, Yavlinski, and others, who, if elected, would not guarantee legal immunity to the Family. Using secret special-service files from the Family-controlled FSB (successor to the KGB) they are trying to destroy opposition candidates. As the elections approach they will, no doubt, use this material even more aggressively to attack them through the government-controlled media."


http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/11/12/55130

Boris Berezovsky beleived that putin would be anather willing puppet, but he underestimated him and is now suffering the consequences.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/...a/EG17Ag01.html

Now, Putin faces a new threat, from YUKOs head, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the leading oligarch with political ambitions.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/350/10...0466_Putin.html

More on the struggle between these great forces. Putin represents the FSB-KGB forces who want a strong State under the leadership of Chekists. the Oligarchs want to de facto privitise the State into extensions of their own private fiefdoms, in other words the role of the State in its essence is the driving force behind this epic power-struggle. cool.gif

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/351/10...0532_state.html
Google
Julian
I find it curious that rightwing Americans are keen to suggest not only that American "won" the cold war, and the Soviets "lost" (not an unjustified claim, given that America survives and the USSR doesn't), but that one was the cause of the other. This has been parroted so often it has become the paradigm.

The logic used is that the USSR bankrupted itself by spending too much on their military in an effort to keep up with the USA's spending, especially under Reagan.

But, demonstrably, the only way America could do this was by spending "too much" itself. How else can one explain the huge defecit run up by Reagan, not only as an international trade defecit, but simple spending vs. revenues?

The Russians were doing exactly the same as the Americans - borrowing money to spend on their military - and I don't remember the Gorbachov-era USSR being told that they couldn't borrow any more money (which is what happens when one is bankrupted), and they had to stop spending as much on their military.

If the USA "won", it was because they had a better credit rating, not because of a superior moral or political authority.

I really do think that the collapse of the USSR and the introduction of democracy was a good thing - particularly in the satellite states of Eastern Europe, most of which have moved so far so fast the they are now knocking on the door of the EU.

However, I think that having the biggest overdraft is hardly something to boast about, especially when the current administration is running up even more eye-watering debt to fund the current round of military inflation and tax cuts to the wealthy.
Thomas
QUOTE
I really do think that the collapse of the USSR and the introduction of democracy was a good thing - particularly in the satellite states of Eastern Europe, most of which have moved so far so fast the they are now knocking on the door of the EU.


Democracy may have been established in the ex-satellite territories in Eastern Europe, but Russia is evolving into a Putinist "managed democracy" with the FSB the real power. There are two forces in Russia battling for control the oligarchs and the security services. Neither care about democracy.

If you want to know more:http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=142

The Americans through the arms race had a part of the colapse of the Soviet Union, but the real reason was the internal collapse in confidence among the ruling Soviet elite during the eighties.
CruisingRam
Very good Thomas, you hit the nail on the head, very good research. I am glad you spelled Berezovsky better in English than I did LOL

This struggle is still very dynamic today, and it is unfortunate that the "experts" in this administration have "believed thier own press" about Reagan somehow effecting the Soviets "collapse"- which in itself is somewhat of a misnomer. Putin has used the administration very well in his dealings with his own power elite. Russia is a great place to visit, and someday will be a great place to do business, when my son's generation comes to power probably, they understand how to do western business more and more over there. The Germans about have the markets sewed up though!
CruisingRam
I e-mailed this subject to my cousin, he says thanks, but wants to know if anyone cares to rebut thomas?
Amlord
Here is the BBC timeline of the "collapse"
BBC

CR:
I would be curious as to how old your cousin is and whether he (she?) lived throught the era. As with any other occurance, revisionist history is probably rampant, especially since the Soviet press still isn't exactly forthcoming with information. Propaganda was (and may still be) the rule, not the exception.

I find it hard to believe that if the Soviet "collapse" was orchestrated from within that the USSR would allow actual Republics to leave the USSR. Especially the Ukraine, which formed what little backbone the Soviet economy had...
CruisingRam
Propaganda was far worse here than in Russia IMO- for instance, there is no "James Bond" or "americans as bad guy" movies that were so rampant here during the cold war. My cousin is only 19, but my mom-in-law, father-in-law, aunt-in-law, some former communists, some not, lived through that era, and the revisionist history, mostly the effect the US had on the collapse of the old system, is pure propaganda. When you read literture, watch old TV shows, and movies from the Cold war "communist" era of Russia, there is damned little propaganda, especially compared to what we did!

Thomas was dead on from my research. Part of the reason was the changing of the rules to allow the moving of thier capital outside of the nation, which would have been impossible, or at a great loss, prior to the "collapse"-
Thomas
QUOTE
Thomas was dead on from my research. Part of the reason was the changing of the rules to allow the moving of thier capital outside of the nation, which would have been impossible, or at a great loss, prior to the "collapse"-


It is also well known that billions were spirited away by the Communist Party during the late eighties to the West - suggesting that some forward-looking Communist Party bosses knew that the whole system was nearing collapse.

The collapse of the USSR could have been avoided, if the Kremlin had sent the tanks in at the first sign of popular unrest, the West wouldn't have minded (look how the reacted to China) and the Eastern European serfs would have known that the Russians were bent on keeping their empire.

The fact is that networks of the secret police. under orders from the "Centre", the KGB had a vertical structure in relation to their little brother secret polices, in other worlds the Stazi and Co took orders from Moscow. These networks, along with the secret policemen who came to power during the late eighties encouraged the first signs of popular unrest, after it got going, the populace, instinctively knowing that they may have a chance for freedom went on the streets, and you all know what happened after that.

As for the Soviet Union, the supposed "coup" in 1991 is accepted by many Russians as a fake coup since the hardliners didn't do anything to stop Yeltsin,hardly the action of the head of the KGB!

QUOTE
The early pre-dawn hours of August 19, 1991 saw unusual traffic on Moscow's upscale Kutuzovsky Prospekt, home in those days to the nomenklatura owners of the U.S.S.R. Instead of chauffeured automobiles, columns of tanks streamed past the Napoleon Victory Arch headed for the city center and the Russian parliament building called The White House. On television the movie ballet Swan Lake was playing. Special announcers on state radio were reading communiqués from the "Committee For the State of Emergency". The KGB had drawn up large arrest lists of political opponents and had assigned teams to follow these people and seize them on command. Paratroop regiments and the KGB Alpha Commando were brought up surrounding the White House. It was Perevot, the Russian word for 'coup'. Or so it seemed.
And then nothing. For three days the world watched transfixed on CNN, which was allowed to broadcast out of Russia despite internal censorship, as the forces of the Soviet state faced a drunk standing on top of a tank.
Instead of striking decisively at 0400 on August 19, the forces of 'Putschists' simply joined the audience. The KGB did not implement its extensive arrest plans. Gorbachev did not die of 'natural causes' or 'suicide'. The only real shooting event occurred spontaneously when a mob threw molotov cocktails at infantry transports and frightened conscripts fired back. We are told the KGB Alpha and Paratroops refused orders to assault after three days of the drama. Why they simply didn't seize the White House in the pre-dawn hours of August 19 has still not been credibly explained.
Then the "Committee For the State of Emergency" dissolved. Some of its participants turned up dead while others jetted to Gorbachev's seaside dacha (why not to China?) for reasons that are still inexplicable. The All Union Treaty went into effect and the U.S.S.R. dissolved on December 31, 1991. The 15 constituent republics became independent with 12 minus the Baltics forming the 'Commonwealth of Independent States'. The surviving putschists received light or no sentences and have all played more significant subsequent roles in Russian politics than Gorbachev himself.
The explanations given for the hesitancy of the 'Putschists', when combined with the subsequent results, have still not received the skeptical examination they deserve. Here were people steeped in the history of the Bolshevik coup of 1917. Beyond that many of these men had been direct participants in the 1968 suppression of the 'Prague Spring' and the 1980 coup in Kabul, Afghanistan. They certainly had both theoretical training and operational experience in conducting coups. Yet they choked.


Clearly there is more to the "August Coup" than most people think.
CruisingRam
There is a big conspiracy theory in Russia that Gorbachev was in on that whole deal, and many think he was given a huge amount of money to do the deed, by Boris Berezovsky.

The most interesting part of Russia for me when I was visiting was the LACK of propaganda during the cold war, which flew in the face of everything I had learned growing up. I poured over old newspapers and stories that my grandfather and mother in law had saved (they are a museum in thier own right IMO- they throw away nothing LOL)

My grandfather in law was a engineer for Russian nuclear subs- he was reported by his friends to me to be able to build one from memory- his only oversight by the KGB was that he was not allowed to leave the country until 1992. The KGB never spied on it's population in the massive manner that Hoover did to the US population- rather, the KGB appeared to be a tool to commit a type a war against political rivals, sometime after stalin thier role was changed, and alliances created within for this oligarch or that.

The funny thing is, this is consistant with Russian histories under the Czars and before, going all the way back to Ivan the terrible- instead of Oligarchs were teh bolyars then, and he took away thier power in order to make the russian empire.
Amlord
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 8 2003, 11:11 AM)
The KGB never spied on it's population in the massive manner that Hoover did to the US population- rather, the KGB appeared to be a tool to commit a type a war against political rivals, sometime after stalin thier role was changed, and alliances created within for this oligarch or that.

Wow, the Russian scientist I work with thinks that is the funniest thing he has ever read.
Thomas
QUOTE
There is a big conspiracy theory in Russia that Gorbachev was in on that whole deal, and many think he was given a huge amount of money to do the deed, by Boris Berezovsky.


i remember reading that Gorbachev himsef has said that the secret of the October coup of 1991 will go to the grave, to me it was a PR event for Western consumption.

QUOTE
The most interesting part of Russia for me when I was visiting was the LACK of propaganda during the cold war, which flew in the face of everything I had learned growing up. I poured over old newspapers and stories that my grandfather and mother in law had saved (they are a museum in thier own right IMO- they throw away nothing LOL)


I'm very sceptical about that, throughout the Cold War a continued hate propoaganda was thrown against the West, West Germany and Reagon were called "fascists" for example. The presentation of America was seen through the prism of a few millioniares running America while millions of people went homeless.

QUOTE
The KGB never spied on it's population in the massive manner that Hoover did to the US population


Thats totally wrong, all the KGB books I have read, including Russian KGB defectors all say the importance of informers within the Soviet denunciation system of survilliance. Hoover targeted particular groups like leftists, labour activists, civil libertains, the political leadership of America and suspected Communists, not the mass of the public.

How powerful was Boris Berezovsky before the collapse of the USSR?
CruisingRam
Did you ever read any of it, in russian? Or did someone tell you this? I felt the same way, this is what I was told my whole life- for instance, Krushev never said "we will bury you"- a total mistranslation- he said, roughly "communism will defeat the western empire"

Some of the goverment sponsored treatise were niave at best, not really propaganda, the russians fear disorder more than anything as a culture, so the current crime wave is one of thier greatest nightmares come true. So they simply reported the actual crime stories from the US, and especially the organized crime trials. The biggest propaganda they used was omission, there is no mention AT ALL about the standard of living of the average american, home ownership, etc.

But there IS ABSOLUTELY NO propaganda on the scale of the US media. No "James bond" no "hunt for red october" no "Red dawn".

The KGB books here are completely self serving, saying this ensured asylum! I actually gave one to my cousin, and he translated it to his family, and they all enjoyed a belly laugh. They just plain did not have the resources to do the spying that Hoover did. They were simply more cost effective, really spied on those that actually represented a political threat to the oligarchs. Now, it was different under STalin, I am talking after stalin.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.