I was prompted to ask this question by listening to Season 3 of the Blowback podcast (fantastic podcast btw, I can’t believe I started listening to it until now), which is focused on the Korean War. One thing that stuck out to me was how reluctant Stalin was to give the DPRK Soviet support; he was possibly even willing to let the American occupiers be neighbors with the USSR if it meant he didn’t have to fight the US. He seemed to genuinely think he could engage in compromise with America.
This Western-friendly behavior from Stalin’s government wasn’t particularly new either. Prior to WWII, he reached out to the Brits/French/US to form a pact against Hitler, was rejected, and of course the Munich agreement followed and the Soviets settled with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
It is said Stalin greatly admired Roosevelt, and apparently even Churchill. After WWII, he and the US were able to agree on Austria being a neutral state, and Stalin really wanted a similarly neutral, unified Germany as well (this of course, the US would reject).
So that’s Stalin—genuinely seemed to think the West would act in good faith, but continuously got burned.
Fast-forward to the ‘90s, when much of the Russian/Soviet populace (especially Gorbachev) thought they too would get a liberalized, social-democracy with strong welfare and cheap commodities like Western Europe. Instead, Western financiers gutted their country and basically started the apocalypse until Putin comes along and stabilizes things.
But then Putin asks Bill Clinton if they can join NATO, gets burned again. Even several years ago, the Russians seemed to think the West would uphold their end of the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we have Merkel on tape saying that was never going to be the case. Only with the invasion of Ukraine does it seem like Russia has finally gotten the memo that the West will never act towards them in good faith (and even then, I’m not sure if that sentiment is resolute).
Compare this with other independent non-Western nations, such as China, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Burkina Faso under Traoré, etc. These nations exist on a spectrum, with the DPRK or Yemen being openly hostile towards NATO while China is eager to do business (but doesn’t seem to be under any illusion that it will get to join The Big Club).
So TLDR: it seems to me the Soviets/Russians have constantly engaged with the West in good faith, but always get burned. This stands in contrast to other independent countries which have always seemed much more cynical. Is it due to their relative proximity to whiteness? A lack of direct colonization? Why have the Russians constantly thought they would ever be considered equal partners with the West?
Look, russia and the USSR has consistently been led by people who have even less of an idea of what the situation is on the ground than even US politicians. In the US, thats becuase they are bourgeois and live in a world where the banks print money for you. In the USSR, it was because the founders were ideologues who would ignore reality if it didnt march to the tune of their political beliefs and this set the tone for the organization, at least up until they got Gorbachev who was actually sane but was handed a losing hand. In Russia, its because Putin is surrounded by a bunch of bobbleheads who each in turn are surrounded by their own bobbleheads who also have their own posse of bobbleheads as well, and on top of this these bobbleheads are bourgeois who live in a world where the banks print money for you. I have absolutely no idea what motivates the leaders of modern Russia, but i know its not anything that would make sense in the real world or even in the world the bourgeois live in, and I think this mismatch is causing all their issues with the West.
a wiser and more humble person would consider that this is the case because they just don’t know jack shit about Russian geopolitics or history
The important thing is that you have found a way to declare yourself smarter and superior to everyone else. Well done!
No investigation, no right to speak? More like, No investigation, I NEED to tell everyone how smart I am for not investigating.
Lmao
Ok, I feel there is something to say here about this dribble we laugh at:
Look, I’m not a fan of modern Russia, but this feels like an extremely ahistorical pop-history take. I’m not even sure how Russia would exist as a state if all their leaders were the “bumbling ideologues” you describe them as. The Russian government has been pretty clear what their goals and motives are since Putin took power.
spiritually white comment