Gorbachev
“Instead of building new mechanisms and institutions of European security and pursuing a major demilitarisation of European politics … "
Those two things seem to me to be in opposition to one another. If one is going to build new mechanisms for security I don't see how there can me dimilitarisation. I opposed most of the expansion of NATO, Russia opposed all of the expansion of NATO but that WAS the American new security mechanism. The expansion of NATO WAS aimed at Russia but it was NOT offensive, it was DEFENSIVE.
..."the west, and particularly the United States, declared victory in the cold war.”
This has been a constant complaint of the Russians. If true, "triumphalism" it is deeply offensive to me personally and I know to most Americans. Americans are not sore winners, we do not gloat. If we did that with Russia, Gorbachev offers no specifics and I frankly don't remember, I think there were some specific complaints but I don't remember them now, but if we "declared victory" that was wrong. Gorbachev made the conscious decision to end the Soviet Union and its empire. Gorbachev and the Russian people deserve the credit for that, not Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and the American people, conceding of course the pressure put on the Russians. It would be fairer, certainly more gracious of the Americans to say that MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE WON THE COLD WAR.
“Euphoria and triumphalism went to the heads of western leaders."
This is really a sore point with them. There is resentment over "The End of History," that particular essay by Francis Fukuyama and the whole mindset it spawned. Gorbachev gives no specifics and it may be that he can't, that it's such a psychological thing that a person can't say "It was this, it was that, it was this other thing." It's their "feeling," that's just how they felt--DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS REAL! The reality also is though that they didn't then and don't now feel that "MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE WON THE COLD WAR." They view and viewed it as a defeat. Otherwise they would have shared in the "euphoria" and engaged in their own triumphalism. "Triumphalism" is out of order here for western leaders if western leaders engaged in it. "Euphoria," though? Jeez, OF COURSE western leaders, everybody in the West, felt euphoric, had a right, an obligation to feel euphoric that the Berlin Wall was falling! That Germany would be reunited, that the rest of Soviet-dominated eastern Europe would no longer be dominated! See, that's what I suspect is behind these Russian complaints, the loss of empire. Putin specifically denies it. I don't believe him! I don't think any westerner, leader or idiot blogger, believes him. They did not then and can not now feel triumphal or even euphoric BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR EMPIRE. THAT is not a loss they should mourn.
"Taking advantage of Russia’s weakening and the lack of a counterweight, they claimed monopoly leadership and domination in the world.”
A point repeatedly made by Gorbachev and Putin. They feel, and there is some evidence for their feeling, that the Americans, specifically Secretary of State James Baker, lied to Gorbachev about the integration of a united Germany into the "Western sphere," particularly into NATO. They were too weak to oppose it militarily so it has remained a "festering wound" as Gorbachev says later.
Monopoly leadership: Yeah, I think we did.
Domination in the world: Woo. Okay, literally, domination in the world, yes, the world was now unipolar, but boy, that is pretty close to domination of the world and to that, NO!
The enlargement of Nato, Kosovo, missile defence plans and wars in the Middle East had led to a “collapse of trust”, said Gorbachev, now 83. “To put it metaphorically, a blister has now turned into a bloody, festering wound.”
Enlargement of NATO, done.
Missile defence: The missile "shield." I DO understand how a defensive system can be threatening IN THE SENSE THAT IT DESTABILIZES THE BALANCE OF POWER. That assumes there is a balance of power to be destabilizing. Russia, "new" Russia, post-Soviet Russia still wanted to be a "counterweight" to the U.S. in that balance. Which means they still felt we were enemies. Which perhaps means all these things WERE justified.
Kosovo...I don't remember Kosovo, man. We intervened militarily, NATO intervened, it was a bad situation, we intervened, it turned out well. That's what I remember. Maybe I'm wrong. We didn't nuke Moscow, I know that.
wars in the Middle East: That would be Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported those wars then as all I could get, preferring Armageddon with Islam. What is it to the Russians? How did they threaten Mother Russia? They didn't. Those wars, the expansion of NATO, missile defence, Kosovo, did not result in an invasion of Russia.
“Instead of building new mechanisms and institutions of European security and pursuing a major demilitarisation of European politics … "
Those two things seem to me to be in opposition to one another. If one is going to build new mechanisms for security I don't see how there can me dimilitarisation. I opposed most of the expansion of NATO, Russia opposed all of the expansion of NATO but that WAS the American new security mechanism. The expansion of NATO WAS aimed at Russia but it was NOT offensive, it was DEFENSIVE.
..."the west, and particularly the United States, declared victory in the cold war.”
This has been a constant complaint of the Russians. If true, "triumphalism" it is deeply offensive to me personally and I know to most Americans. Americans are not sore winners, we do not gloat. If we did that with Russia, Gorbachev offers no specifics and I frankly don't remember, I think there were some specific complaints but I don't remember them now, but if we "declared victory" that was wrong. Gorbachev made the conscious decision to end the Soviet Union and its empire. Gorbachev and the Russian people deserve the credit for that, not Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and the American people, conceding of course the pressure put on the Russians. It would be fairer, certainly more gracious of the Americans to say that MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE WON THE COLD WAR.
“Euphoria and triumphalism went to the heads of western leaders."
This is really a sore point with them. There is resentment over "The End of History," that particular essay by Francis Fukuyama and the whole mindset it spawned. Gorbachev gives no specifics and it may be that he can't, that it's such a psychological thing that a person can't say "It was this, it was that, it was this other thing." It's their "feeling," that's just how they felt--DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS REAL! The reality also is though that they didn't then and don't now feel that "MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE WON THE COLD WAR." They view and viewed it as a defeat. Otherwise they would have shared in the "euphoria" and engaged in their own triumphalism. "Triumphalism" is out of order here for western leaders if western leaders engaged in it. "Euphoria," though? Jeez, OF COURSE western leaders, everybody in the West, felt euphoric, had a right, an obligation to feel euphoric that the Berlin Wall was falling! That Germany would be reunited, that the rest of Soviet-dominated eastern Europe would no longer be dominated! See, that's what I suspect is behind these Russian complaints, the loss of empire. Putin specifically denies it. I don't believe him! I don't think any westerner, leader or idiot blogger, believes him. They did not then and can not now feel triumphal or even euphoric BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR EMPIRE. THAT is not a loss they should mourn.
"Taking advantage of Russia’s weakening and the lack of a counterweight, they claimed monopoly leadership and domination in the world.”
A point repeatedly made by Gorbachev and Putin. They feel, and there is some evidence for their feeling, that the Americans, specifically Secretary of State James Baker, lied to Gorbachev about the integration of a united Germany into the "Western sphere," particularly into NATO. They were too weak to oppose it militarily so it has remained a "festering wound" as Gorbachev says later.
Monopoly leadership: Yeah, I think we did.
Domination in the world: Woo. Okay, literally, domination in the world, yes, the world was now unipolar, but boy, that is pretty close to domination of the world and to that, NO!
The enlargement of Nato, Kosovo, missile defence plans and wars in the Middle East had led to a “collapse of trust”, said Gorbachev, now 83. “To put it metaphorically, a blister has now turned into a bloody, festering wound.”
Enlargement of NATO, done.
Missile defence: The missile "shield." I DO understand how a defensive system can be threatening IN THE SENSE THAT IT DESTABILIZES THE BALANCE OF POWER. That assumes there is a balance of power to be destabilizing. Russia, "new" Russia, post-Soviet Russia still wanted to be a "counterweight" to the U.S. in that balance. Which means they still felt we were enemies. Which perhaps means all these things WERE justified.
Kosovo...I don't remember Kosovo, man. We intervened militarily, NATO intervened, it was a bad situation, we intervened, it turned out well. That's what I remember. Maybe I'm wrong. We didn't nuke Moscow, I know that.
wars in the Middle East: That would be Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported those wars then as all I could get, preferring Armageddon with Islam. What is it to the Russians? How did they threaten Mother Russia? They didn't. Those wars, the expansion of NATO, missile defence, Kosovo, did not result in an invasion of Russia.
