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.
No it was not "the coup in Moscow in 1991" that was the "catalyst" for breaking up the USSR - THIS IS WHAT was the true catalyst behind it all;
" In October 1991, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF.[1]"
So by the time the criminal ( from general population's point of view) Belavezha Accord has been signed, dissolving Soviet Union, Yeltsin and his team were already cooperating with American government from within, destroying the lives of millions of people.
( You need to understand that "America's hopeful," the very Gaidar who later orchestrated the "shock therapy" in Russia, was the very person who was preparing the act of official dissolution of the Soviet Union in Belovezha.)
And that's what Russians didn't forget or forgive both to the US and Yeltsin alike.
The direct result of these reforms was the creation of oligarchy and the war we are heading towards to today.
...
It seems you believe the effects of Perestroika brought about the downfall, but more than that. An interesting point of view you are presenting. Like I said before, we have our own ideas around this issue but I won't stoop to the level of dismissing yours in the way you do mine.
The shock therapy in October was more of an effect of the country's demise, not a cause. You could argue the coup attempt was also an effect of the breaking up rather than a cause (but you seem to ignore the event). The SU was already coming apart before October, and you know it because you were there. The American government got involved of course because we wanted to see Russia come out of it a partner rather than a hostile rogue state. Looking back things could have been done better but it was hard to get a handle on things at the time. But just because we got involved to help with the programs to privatize doesn't mean we caused the events that occurred. The problem was the corruption and people who took advantage of this who became the next oligarch class. It wasn't America's idea to hand Russia over to the KGB oligarchs who Putin now defends.
There is no war anybody is heading towards. That is just the policy Putin created to make America an enemy in the minds of his people to keep them from throwing off his system. It also covers up the truth, that the sanctions against Russia are for its support of the DNR in Ukraine.
To begin with - "Ukrainian identity" is first of all yet again the westernmost regions thing.
THOSE ethnic Ukrainians would never be "together with local Russians" ANYWHERE. ( As I've already said, they didn't share common history with Russia/rest of Ukraine since the 11th century.)
It's just before the infliction of this "identity" was not enforced on the rest of Ukraine as it is today, under a life threat - literally so.
As for the Eastern part of Ukraine - you need to understand that such thing as "Russian identity" has been reinforced during Putin's times as well. ( Why? Because it serves economic interests of the ruling class of Russia ( or so they think.) It's THEM who pointed at Eastern Ukrainians, ( ethnic Russians and Ukrainian alike,) saying that "it's a different country."
What do you think, has the west - eu, us etc helped a bit to jack up, to boost up the above mentioned Ukrainian idendity?
To promote nationalism is in general always useful for ruling class as it helps to distract attention of lower classes away from the real and vital problems such as low incomes for instance. Nationalism helps so well.
What do you think, has the west - eu, us etc helped a bit to jack up, to boost up the above mentioned Ukrainian idendity?
Yes, no doubt about it. I think the cultivation of "Ukrainian identity" goes back to the times of "Orange Revolution" , orchestrated with the help of the US.
If you'll look up who came to inauguration of Victor Yushenko ( the ultimate protege of the US and NATO, along with his American-born wife,) you'll figure out why cultivation of "Ukrainian identity" was inseparable part of a program with a long-term goal of setting Ukraine against Russian interests.
(Not that the idiots in Russian gov. tried to counteract this process of "Ukrainization" in any way back then.)
Quote:
To promote nationalism is in general always useful for ruling class as it helps to distract attention of lower classes away from the real and vital problems such as low incomes for instance. Nationalism helps so well.
In Ukraine it's definitely a case, but in Russia things are more complicated, since true Russian nationalism today goes actually AGAINST the interests of the ruling class.
See, Russia is a multi-national state, where the elites of different ethnic groups work hand in hand with Russian government ( starting with Chechnya's Kadyrov) and the rest.
Not to mention that Russian construction business ( and not only) thrives on the cheap labor imported from Central Asia, (all this in turn infuriates Russian nationalists.)
So since Russian government is all about money and "things corporate," it really has no interest in engaging Russian nationalism in any way.
Putin is walking a tight rope here, trying to promote "patriotism" instead of it, while Russian nationalists remain under a close scrutiny.
In Ukraine however as I've said earlier, nationalism is basically a state policy.
" In October 1991, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF.[1]"
Yeltsin became a stooge since he owed his survival to the CIA.
It seems you believe the effects of Perestroika brought about the downfall, but more than that. An interesting point of view you are presenting. Like I said before, we have our own ideas around this issue but I won't stoop to the level of dismissing yours in the way you do mine.
It's not about "stooping" - it's about following through with methodical explanations, why the events of the nineties in Russia were in fact a crime of the century. You are trying to present it as a series of *mishaps,* while I am proving to you step by step that there were no "mishaps,* - it was indeed a plan designed by American gov.
And that's why I am dismissing your ideas, since they lead in wrong direction.
Quote:
The shock therapy in October was more of an effect of the country's demise, not a cause.
That's what Gaidar (America's darling, the man who conducted shock therapy) was trying to convince the country in, but it was a lie. Yavlinsky, ( being former Gorbachev/Yeltsin economist) was the ultimate witness who proved it ( even if unintentionally so,) during his interview. ( I posted the link to it earlier.) And not only him.
Quote:
You could argue the coup attempt was also an effect of the breaking up rather than a cause (but you seem to ignore the event).
It was "an effect" for UKRAINE, but the underlying currents for the dissolution of the Soviet Union were much stronger than just this event. If not for those underlying currents, the Ukrainian vote could have changed with time, had things headed in right direction ( from economic and political point of view.) But that was definitely not a case.
Quote:
The SU was already coming apart before October, and you know it because you were there.
No, I was not. I left the country about three-four years before that, and at that point in time the dissipation of the Soviet Union was still coming across as unthinkable.
Quote:
The American government got involved of course because we wanted to see Russia come out of it a partner rather than a hostile rogue state. Looking back things could have been done better but it was hard to get a handle on things at the time. But just because we got involved to help with the programs to privatize doesn't mean we caused the events that occurred. The problem was the corruption and people who took advantage of this who became the next oligarch class. It wasn't America's idea to hand Russia over to the KGB oligarchs who Putin now defends.
OK, let me straighten it out for you one more time, because here you are following the narrative of American propaganda machine yet again, which can't be further away from truth.
See, the ORIGINAL Russian oligarchy had NOTHING to do with either KGB or Putin. This oligarchy was mostly Jewish, dealing with banking system ( and some of them were media moguls.) These were the people closely tied to Yeltsin AND American advisers. ( You can see proof right here - in this Wiki article
"After the plan failed, half of those oligarchs formed what became known as Semibankirschina — a group of seven business moguls ironically named after the 17th century seven boyars who owned the majority of Russian media resources and who decided to promote Boris Yeltsin every way possible. Since Yeltsin was highly unpopular by that time, with only 3—8% support, a complex technology of crowd manipulation was developed by the Gleb Pavlovsky's and Marat Gelman's think tank Foundation for Effective Politics,[18] with the involvement of American specialists (the latter fact was used as a basis for the comedy film Spinning Boris released in 2003)."
So yes, American government very much wanted those oligarchs to be in place, since they were following the US commands, as much as Yeltsin did.
However American propaganda machine is silent about this part of history; it prefers to go straight to Putin and HIS oligarchy and to drum up a storm.
The fact however remains - that's who ORIGINAL oligarchs were, that's what they stood for ( the easy access to Russia's natural resources for American companies, and dismantling of any remaining power of the Russian state.)
And that's why they were indispensable for American gov.
Too bad Yeltsin tossed all good cards for American endeavors in the garbage can, when he appointed Putin as his replacement. You can read the rest in this article, what happened to ORIGINAL oligarchy of Russia ( well, most of them.)
There is no war anybody is heading towards. That is just the policy Putin created to make America an enemy in the minds of his people to keep them from throwing off his system. It also covers up the truth, that the sanctions against Russia are for its support of the DNR in Ukraine.
Well since American propaganda machine does not explain to you all the facts I am presenting you now, obviously you think that it's just "Putin who made America an enemy in the minds of people."
Unfortunately, Russians are well aware of ALL the parts of the 90ies story, unlike you and most of American population.
So it's not like Putin just "created" something out of a thin air. He is actually using TRUE facts for his propaganda and manipulations, and THIS plays in his hands very nicely.
Similar to what was recently seen with Turkey's Erdogan.
Yeah... I rmember this very Strobe Talbotte mentioned in this article was quoted basically saying that Soviet Union didn't need any reforms or restructuring; all it needed was a wrecking ball.
And as a friend said - Talbotts and the likes of him couldn't care less what happened to those, burred under the rubbles.
Yeah... I rmember this very Strobe Talbotte mentioned in this article was quoted basically saying that Soviet Union didn't need any reforms or restructuring; all it needed was a wrecking ball.
And as a friend said - Talbotts and the likes of him couldn't care less what happened to those, burred under the rubbles.
Russia went well beyond Poland and Greece since Yeltsin agreed to the third phase which sells off state-run businesses to private interests. Both of the two other countries have dragged their feet.
Yes, no doubt about it. I think the cultivation of "Ukrainian identity" goes back to the times of "Orange Revolution" , orchestrated with the help of the US.
If you'll look up who came to inauguration of Victor Yushenko ( the ultimate protege of the US and NATO, along with his American-born wife,) you'll figure out why cultivation of "Ukrainian identity" was inseparable part of a program with a long-term goal of setting Ukraine against Russian interests.
(Not that the idiots in Russian gov. tried to counteract this process of "Ukrainization" in any way back then.)
Ukraina is fine but well of course I am naive but I just think sometimes wouldn't it be easier to have two Ukrainas instead of one contradictional one. The western part could freely then own it's Ukrainian identity and look towards west, the eastern part could freely look towards Russia with what it shares much common.
Quote:
In Ukraine it's definitely a case, but in Russia things are more complicated, since true Russian nationalism today goes actually AGAINST the interests of the ruling class.
See, Russia is a multi-national state, where the elites of different ethnic groups work hand in hand with Russian government ( starting with Chechnya's Kadyrov) and the rest.
Not to mention that Russian construction business ( and not only) thrives on the cheap labor imported from Central Asia, (all this in turn infuriates Russian nationalists.)
So since Russian government is all about money and "things corporate," it really has no interest in engaging Russian nationalism in any way.
Putin is walking a tight rope here, trying to promote "patriotism" instead of it, while Russian nationalists remain under a close scrutiny.
In Ukraine however as I've said earlier, nationalism is basically a state policy.
However, nationalism and patriotism are almost synonyms, the latter one is more appropriate to use in case of multi-ethnical countries like Russia. Nationalism in turn may have different wings- some of them can be favoured by state authorities but some of the wings not. As for patriotism in Russia - I have eg noticed that during Putin's rule for instance the celebrations of the 9th May have grown bigger and more monumental than they were eg in Soviet era. It's not like I know how exactly it is celebrated in contemporary Russia but at least I have got such impression.
Ukraina is fine but well of course I am naive but I just think sometimes wouldn't it be easier to have two Ukrainas instead of one contradictional one. The western part could freely then own it's Ukrainian identity and look towards west, the eastern part could freely look towards Russia with what it shares much common.
However, nationalism and patriotism are almost synonyms, the latter one is more appropriate to use in case of multi-ethnical countries like Russia. Nationalism in turn may have different wings- some of them can be favoured by state authorities but some of the wings not. As for patriotism in Russia - I have eg noticed that during Putin's rule for instance the celebrations of the 9th May have grown bigger and more monumental than they were eg in Soviet era. It's not like I know how exactly it is celebrated in contemporary Russia but at least I have got such impression.
And that is the key difference, you can't have people running around yelling Russia for Russians (ethnic Russians) when you have huge swaths of territory that have native ethnic majorities such as Chechnya, Tatarstan, Tuva and Yakutia. If these Nationalists get their way either "A" a huge genocide will happen, or "B" Russia will fall apart. However the authorities still want the general populous to be loyal to the government so they support patriotism, just like the soviets did, and just like the US does.
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.
