Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say my response to you instead of to greg was more on point to your actual issue. But you did prove my last paragraph, that many Russians are trying to rewrite their own history about the demise of the USSR by blaming the US and claiming the republics did not want to break it apart. How do you explain Bush's attempt to steer Ukraine away from independence? You can't seem to accept the fact that the SU collapsed under its own inability to provide for its own people. People always view history through their own lens though, you have yours and I have mine.
What "exactly happened" is a complex series of events, but by far the biggest was the failed anti-Gorbachev coup in August. Remnick's Lenin's Tomb provides most of the narrative that I agree with, so you can start there... its been so long since I read it that I forgot many details. The fact is, many Ukrainians had different motivations for declaring independence. You can look to the Rada discussions on this leading up to their vote August. Consider Kravchuk's reformist Communist approach, he was looking for a compromise between a renewed union and a new republic (the old-line Communists vs. the nationalists). He wanted a union of equal states and not a union of states with a CPSU superbody. This showed there were more than 2 sides to this situation (as there are now).
There were other factors, such as Yeltsin's Russia also started acting more like it was going to be the head of the new union of states instead of an equal.
With all that going on, its easy for anyone to say it was this or that conspiracy or that somehow the people were tricked one way or another. I've seen often enough in Russian press that Ukrainian statehood is either not what the people intended or that it was created by Westerners bent on breaking up the union. Some Russians think the coup was organized by westerners to bring down the USSR. Others blame Gorby, so the opposite side. Why didn't Gorby have Ukraine represented in the November 1991 meetings drafting the new union treaty?
Nevertheless, the 12/1 vote was clear with over 90%. What was left of any union was preserved in the CIS entity. Which, ironically, Putin ended with his invasion of Ukraine, causing it to formally withdraw.
One of the most precise renditions of an alternate reality I have ever read.
You should be an American journalist DKM, you'd go far.
I'd say my response to you instead of to greg was more on point to your actual issue. But you did prove my last paragraph, that many Russians are trying to rewrite their own history about the demise of the USSR by blaming the US and claiming the republics did not want to break it apart. How do you explain Bush's attempt to steer Ukraine away from independence? You can't seem to accept the fact that the SU collapsed under its own inability to provide for its own people. People always view history through their own lens though, you have yours and I have mine.
Correct. The Soviet Union broke up due to internal tensions. Of course, someone like Reagan tried to claim credit for its dissolution and many still regard him incorrectly as the architect of the USSR's demise. The SU was on a downward spiral by the 70's. The unpopular war in Afghanistan, the failings of the economy... it had become a very different country to what it was during its 50's and 60's heyday when it had become the first nation to put a satellite into orbit and send its first cosmonaut into space.
The same thing happened with the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Some like to pretend that it was an external affair, but all the cracks were already there. When Tito died, old wounds began to resurface. Croats and Serbs have always hated each others guts.
You are absolutely right in that people always view history through subjective lenses. Having grown up in a predominantly Serbian family (though I do have other bloodlines), I was in the drivers seat the whole time. It was always about how bad Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, Turks... Serbia was always portrayed as this innocent little victim . The reality on the ground was that everyone had their own set of prejudices that came into play.
I once tried to date a Croat girl. Boy of boy, did that go south very fast.
That's why I have little tolerance for Eastern European shenanigans these days. When you come to the New World, its time to leave all that crap behind.
One of the most precise renditions of an alternate reality I have ever read.
You should be an American journalist DKM, you'd go far.
Putin and his followers can try to rewrite history all they want. That's nothing new at all from Moscow. They won't convince Ukrainians that they didn't and still don't want independence from Russia. No amount of nonsense from Russian media is believed by anyone outside of Russia except for fringey conspiracy theory minded people, and the occasional disillusioned Russian expat.
Correct. The Soviet Union broke up due to internal tensions. Of course, someone like Reagan tried to claim credit for its dissolution and many still regard him incorrectly as the architect of the USSR's demise. The SU was on a downward spiral by the 70's. The unpopular war in Afghanistan, the failings of the economy... it had become a very different country to what it was during its 50's and 60's heyday when it had become the first nation to put a satellite into orbit and send its first cosmonaut into space.
The same thing happened with the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Some like to pretend that it was an external affair, but all the cracks were already there. When Tito died, old wounds began to resurface. Croats and Serbs have always hated each others guts.
Wrong again.
You are trying to project Yugoslavian experience onto the Soviet Union, but these were two completely different countries.
There were NO "unpopular wars" in the seventies in the Soviet Union, only "successful" or "unsuccessful" ones. The seventies in the Soviet Union ( from ideological point of view) were no different from the sixties; the fifties however were still too close to Stalin's times, so THEY were different.
It might be true, that the economic downfall truly started in S.U. in the seventies, but even if it was so, it was impossible to tell, since the shelves were still stuffed with the import products from former Eastern block countries, be that Polish, Hungarian or Bulgarian products.
Now when it comes to Yugoslavia - that country was regarded by Russians as practically part of the "West," judging by the quality of products ( as few as there were on the Soviet shelves.)
And my Italian friend was telling me by the way, that she was sometimes crossing the border to Yugoslavia to buy certain things that were as good in quality, but cheaper.
So no, the S.U. was totally, totally different country comparably to Yugoslavia, even if to mention that Socialist system was established in Yugoslavia only in the forties, where in Russia it ruled since the 1917.
Quote:
You are absolutely right in that people always view history through subjective lenses. Having grown up in a predominantly Serbian family (though I do have other bloodlines), I was in the drivers seat the whole time. It was always about how bad Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, Turks... Serbia was always portrayed as this innocent little victim . The reality on the ground was that everyone had their own set of prejudices that came into play.
I once tried to date a Croat girl. Boy of boy, did that go south very fast.
Again - TOTALLY different ethnic problems in Yugoslavia, comparably to the Soviet Union.
Russian Empire ( before the USSR) included a great number of ethnic groups, that were inferior in their socio-economic development to Russians; some of them even didn't have their writing language developed yet.
So during Soviet times, Russians made sure that all these people would become literate and get the infrastructure in their lands. Therefore it was not about the rivalry between the equal different ethnic groups, the kind you saw in Yugoslavia.
There was NO rivalry between Russians and Ukrainians as well back in those days - that is except for the three westernmost provinces, that were included in S.U. only after the WWII, and were never part of Russian/Ukrainian history to begin with. They were stirring a lot of sh*t and still do of course. ( All that was reflected in the popular vote during the referendum I've mentioned earlier. )
AND there was a lot of resentment towards Russians in Baltic countries, that considered themselves occupied since the WWII.
And THAT was reflected in that popular vote as well.
Quote:
That's why I have little tolerance for Eastern European shenanigans these days. When you come to the New World, its time to leave all that crap behind.
I am not sure what you christen "shenanigans," but when you *buy* the "New World" - i.e. when you see indisputably its advantages over the Old one, you leave what was worse (i.e. the Old World) behind.
I, however, am not convinced by the *advantages.*
I'd say my response to you instead of to greg was more on point to your actual issue. But you did prove my last paragraph, that many Russians are trying to rewrite their own history about the demise of the USSR by blaming the US and claiming the republics did not want to break it apart.
It's not "re-writing." It's a deeper knowledge of the subject, hence they can dismiss American propaganda/mythology, stating what REALLY took place.
This particular vote showed what PEOPLE ( as in "DEMOCRATIC VOTE") wanted in this situation. And what the majority of them wanted, was their country to not to be broken apart. Now what GOVERNMENTS of these republics wanted, enticed by the Western promises of "money and business" was a totally different thing.
But the people have spoken, and so the destruction of their country went against their will.
Quote:
How do you explain Bush's attempt to steer Ukraine away from independence?
Not only Ukraine, but he was trying to steer the Baltic countries away from independence as well.
Bush Senior was a very cautious politician, with the logo "Do no harm."
He was quite happy with Gorbachev's ideas of "perestoyka," and the break-up of the Soviet Union was not a part of this plan. So Bush was trying to support Gorbachev as long as he could, until he had to give in to the pressure of the financial lobby of the US, salivating over Russia's riches, that ( as they thought) they could finally put their hands on, with all the "privatization" BS. They wouldn't have a chance of getting any of it, if the country's natural resources would have remained under the state control ( as it SHOULD HAVE REMAINED all along.)
You need to understand that in the US, it's the financial complex that rules the country, not some "freedom and democracy."
Quote:
You can't seem to accept the fact that the SU collapsed under its own inability to provide for its own people.
The SOVIET SYSTEM with its rigidness, authoritarianism and intolerance to any dissent - THAT'S what collapsed.
But the COUNTRY ( the Soviet Union that is) remained, and it needed viable economic reforms, it needed restructuring, it needed adjustments, and all of it - without break-up, because first of all, it was spelling "disaster" from economic point of view, since the economy of all republics at that point in time was highly interdependent. It was all possible to accomplish, but instead of it, Americans saw the opening to destroy its potential economic competitor once and for all, so here enter the corporate democrats Clintons.
The rest I explained already many times.
Quote:
People always view history through their own lens though, you have yours and I have mine.
Except for I am much more familiar with the subject.
You prefer to regurgitate what American propaganda machine told you.
P.S. Sorry for repetition, but in previous version the quotation marks were messed up, so I asked the mods to remove it.
Wrong again.
You are trying to project Yugoslavian experience onto the Soviet Union, but these were two completely different countries.
There were NO "unpopular wars" in the seventies in the Soviet Union, only "successful" or "unsuccessful" ones. The seventies in the Soviet Union ( from ideological point of view) were no different from the sixties; the fifties however were still too close to Stalin's times, so THEY were different.
It might be true, that the economic downfall truly started in S.U. in the seventies, but even if it was so, it was impossible to tell, since the shelves were still stuffed with the import products from former Eastern block countries, be that Polish, Hungarian or Bulgarian products.
Now when it comes to Yugoslavia - that country was regarded by Russians as practically part of the "West," judging by the quality of products ( as few as there were on the Soviet shelves.)
And my Italian friend was telling me by the way, that she was sometimes crossing the border to Yugoslavia to buy certain things that were as good in quality, but cheaper.
So no, the S.U. was totally, totally different country comparably to Yugoslavia, even if to mention that Socialist system was established in Yugoslavia only in the forties, where in Russia it ruled since the 1917.
Yugoslavia was part of the non-alligned movement and as such had relations with both blocks. The Society and the West would vie for influence over there.
Of course the socialist system only came into play in the 40's after WW2 as it used to be a kingdom prior to that. Croats and Serbs were already antagonists at that time.
The district of New Belgrade was built after WW2 across the Sava river from the old city, in a manner that reflected Soviet style planning. People often refer to those buildings as "Commie blocks".
Quote:
Again - TOTALLY different ethnic problems in Yugoslavia, comparably to the Soviet Union.
Russian Empire ( before the USSR) included a great number of ethnic groups, that were inferior in their socio-economic development to Russians; some of them even didn't have their writing language developed yet.
So during Soviet times, Russians made sure that all these people would become literate and get the infrastructure in their lands. Therefore it was not about the rivalry between the equal different ethnic groups, the kind you saw in Yugoslavia.
There was NO rivalry between Russians and Ukrainians as well back in those days - that is except for the three westernmost provinces, that were included in S.U. only after the WWII, and were never part of Russian/Ukrainian history to begin with. They were stirring a lot of sh*t and still do of course. ( All that was reflected in the popular vote during the referendum I've mentioned earlier. )
AND there was a lot of resentment towards Russians in Baltic countries, that considered themselves occupied since the WWII.
And THAT was reflected in that popular vote as well.
In both countries, one ethnic group became the dominant power. The republic with the largest population would ruled in each case. I don't think it's really even a secret at this point, as even Stalin who was Georgian undertook policies to ensure that the state was Russified. Yes, other nationalities had their own language and corresponding alphabet, but there was little doubt as to who was the "Don of the house".
In Yugoslavia it was a little trickier to determine as both Serbs and Croats had a solid backbone in the country. The capital of Belgrade was in the Serbian Republic, but Tito himself was Croat and many of his policies would only come into play following his death. There was a lot of jealousy between the two factions with Serbs accusing Tito of favorism (many roads in Belgrade were renamed following the dissolution of the country).
Quote:
I am not sure what you christen "shenanigans," but when you *buy* the "New World" - i.e. when you see indisputably its advantages over the Old one, you leave what was worse (i.e. the Old World) behind.
I, however, am not convinced by the *advantages.*
It's not that I dislike the Old World or the people/nations living in it, but the mentality that links them to the Old World. Now it's fine if you appreciate your own culture and follow some traditions, but not if you carry all your baggage with you it's going to create problems. The younger generation that great up on the New World is largely interested in moving on and are far more willing to engage with their "old foes" but many older ones have a hard time letting go.
I've met people from Eastern Europe in the US, Canada and Australia who have been living there for over 40 years, yet are barely able to hold a conversation in English.
As to your other point, both the Old and New world have their own merits.
The SOVIET SYSTEM with its rigidness, authoritarianism and intolerance to any dissent - THAT'S what collapsed.
But the COUNTRY ( the Soviet Union that is) remained, and it needed viable economic reforms, it needed restructuring, it needed adjustments, and all of it - without break-up, because first of all, it was spelling "disaster" from economic point of view, since the economy of all republics at that point in time was highly interdependent. It was all possible to accomplish, but instead of it, Americans saw the opening to destroy its potential economic competitor once and for all, so here enter the corporate democrats Clintons.
The rest I explained already many times.
Except for I am much more familiar with the subject.
You prefer to regurgitate what American propaganda machine told you.
I have news for you, I am formally educated on this subject beyond what I know from family and friends and from living there too. You are familiar with your experience and I am with mine. Have you read Remnick's book? It was required reading to kick off our Russian studies.
Bush was representing the actual American "establishment" position too. We wanted the Soviet system destroyed and a democratic successor state. Not a Yugoslavian type of partition as it leads to instability. It was in our financial class's interests to see this carried through to turn Russia into a part of Europe with growing markets and trade. There is tons of evidence of this, and none that breaking up states would make our investors richer. It all happened quick though. 1991 spiraled out of everyone's control. We didn't want the anti-Gorby coup to happen and obviously that changed the game for everyone.
The breakup of the asian republics was aided by the respective leaders there wanting absolute control of their countries. That has borne out in the results. Same thing happened with Belarus.
But the rest: Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia they all consisted of historical nation/states/people that wanted to not be Russian controlled anymore than Poland or Finland does. Crimea should have then been given back to Russia, that is Ukraine's historical mistake.
I'd say my response to you instead of to greg was more on point to your actual issue. But you did prove my last paragraph, that many Russians are trying to rewrite their own history about the demise of the USSR by blaming the US and claiming the republics did not want to break it apart. How do you explain Bush's attempt to steer Ukraine away from independence? You can't seem to accept the fact that the SU collapsed under its own inability to provide for its own people. People always view history through their own lens though, you have yours and I have mine.
You mix time frames and assume that all are the same. No one has made the claim that outside interference resulted in the attempts by Ukraine and Crimea to form independent states in 1991 or that the conflicts in Georgia and Azerbaijan during the same time were aided by covert foreign military aid, although I would be open to that information. There are later conflicts that were clearly induced by foreign meddling, such as Yugoslavia and the later wars in Georgia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The reality on the ground was that everyone had their own set of prejudices that came into play. 
