What is amazing is how the “Stab in the back” myth got going.
I’m watching a similar narrative unfold in Russia. The myth being propagated, and lapped up, is that Russia was strong and respected in the days of the USSR and then suddenly a handful of people (who naturally were nothing to do with Russia, really) gave it all up and surrendered unnecessarily. The West rushed in, led by the Americans, with the sole purpose of grinding Russians’ noses into the dirt and dismantling their country. They very nearly succeeded, but fortunately Putin descended from the clouds to save the nation, and is setting about restoring Russia’s place in the world and thanks to him Russia is strong again and will never again be subject to humiliation at the hands of the Americans.
Of course, the reality is that Russia persisted with an idiotic system of economic and political management despite the West telling them not to, and it inevitably collapsed around their ears. Rather than take the women and children as slaves, shoot all the men, and plough salt into the earth the West took pity on their former sworn enemies and offered them well-intended but hopelessly naive advice on how to build a market economy – naive because it failed to take into account the fact that far too many Russians would rather kill each other in order to get filthy rich than do some work and add some value. Having contributed to the almighty mess that Russia became, certain state-backed thugs rose to the top and accepted Putin as their leader who spent about 7-8 years providing some much-needed stability before the oil price rose, stoked his ego, and sent him into the delusion that he is some kind of Peter the Great figure who is destined to restore Russia’s place at the global top-table. Which is a fine aim, but thus far he’s managed to shoot down an airliner, ban the import of Lithuanian cheese, help himself to a peninsular he can only access in summer, and the traffic lights in most Russian towns still don’t work.
As with Germany, the second time around, the West might not be so charitable.
– Jake Barnes commenting on a Samizdata article.
Sadly some libertarians are helping with these lies about the wicked West undermining the lovely Soviet Union – Russia. And not all the libertarians who are helping spreading the lies are from the “libertarian” left.
Such lies as that there was an agreement that NATO would not allow Eastern European countries to join are not just being spread by ex Soviet leaders, but are also being spread by libertarians of both left and right. After all one can not legitimately describe Ron Paul and his friends are members of the “libertarian left”, and they go on “Russia Today”, and anywhere else that will have them, spreading every anti American and anti Western falsehood that serves the purposes of Mr Putin and co.
By the way the West did give some bad (terrible) advice to the Yeltsin Administration – terrible advice on monetary policy and banking.
This advance led to the collapse of reform in the Yeltsin years – and the rise of Putin.
This was not the intention of the advice – but it was the result of the advice.
The West gave similar advice on monetary policy to Chang in China in the 1940s – thus, unintentionally, helping Mao to power.
Although the military “advice” of the West, the order of General Marshall (really from the “Old China Hands”)to Chang to stop the Manchurian Offensive of 1946.
By the way, I have received advice to stop using brackets.
Having thought about the advice I do not agree with it.
Essential qualifying points need to be made at once – not later on. And the way to do that is to make the point in brackets. Otherwise I leave myself open to be quoted out of context.
I certainly do not agree that using brackets makes stuff “unreadable”.
I apologise for assuming that people would know that both the Yeltsin years in Russia and the Chang years in China were marked by massive inflation and banking instability.
The classic results of trying to base lending (consumption) on credit-money expansion rather than REAL SAVINGS.
There were Hollywood films trying to blame Chinese inflation on “gangsters” violating price controls, and there is a lot of stuff about “gangsters” under Yeltsin in Russia. There certainly were gangsters – but they were not relevant to the matters of central importance.
Today Russia is interesting in that the “gangsters” (i.e. organised crime) are actually the same thing as the government – as organised crime (and the economy generally) in Russia is dominated by serving or former officers of the security organs – headed by Mr Putin.
Mr Putin’s regime is often compared to the Fascist regime of Mussolini in Italy in the 1930s – but this is not entirely accurate.
A better comparison would be, oddly enough, that of “The Federation” in the early episodes of the Science Fiction series “Blake’s Seven”, where the President of the “Federation” turned out to be also the head of organised crime.
Thus Mr Putin controls both sides of the law.
As for the West.
We are now bankrupt (or near bankrupt) over expanded Welfare States – this was not true of Britain (and so on) in the 1930s.
Our conflict with Putin’s Russia and with the vast growing might of CHINA, may not go well for us.
Especially as the West is riddled with traitors – including libertarian traitors.
People who regard the struggles against totalitarianism in the past as “Imperialist” wars fought for the benefit of a Western “Ruling Class”.
See, for example, the vile article that was published on the “Ludwig Von Mises” site on Veterans Day. Marxist language brought into libertarianism by the late Murray Rothbard. It was, of course, Rothbardians who deceived and mentally corrupted Ron Paul and others.
And who also pretend that military spending is the great threat to Western economies – although, in reality the military forces of the West (including the United States) are in a state of terminal decline, as the Welfare States eat everything that is not themselves.
Counting tactical nukes, which the West no longer has, Russia has more nuclear warheads than the US, UK and France combined. They have also modernized their systems while those in the West are obsolescent. The people manning America’s bomber and land missile force are also suspect. Russia also has a first use policy and will launch at any hint of a conventional attack on its territory.
Whatever is going on in Russia, it remains a powerful and dangerous enemy capable of lashing out and destroying Western civilization and the West’s people in a matter of hours.
The US/EU/NATO behavior in the Ukraine has been provocative in the extreme. First the US engineered coup and now the US/EU sanctions. If the sanctions were to collapse the Russian economy, the war would be on.
By the way, I think I believe Gorbachev more than I believe Paul Marks regarding the post collapse settlements.
Utter bullshit. Stop listening to RT, it rots your brain.
Such a pretty chart. Remember, Russia imports pretty much everything.
Indeed, and someone said ‘When goods don’t cross borders, people do.“. Hopefully not in columns.
“Whatever is going on in Russia, it remains a powerful and dangerous enemy”
That seems true. Not because Russia is very strong, but because the West is very weak.
We know that even a poor country, if big enough, can concentrate resources on weapons and the military and be capable of doing a lot of harm. (Eg.: Soviet Union, North Korea).
Whether Putin’s grievances are true or imagined – his capability of doing harm is great. We must not misunderestimate him.
The US could give any Russian with an engineering qualification a green pass. Also models. This would be a relatively cost less way of bringing Russia to collapse.
I was impressed that none of Paul’s comments contained mention of ‘that guy’ on RT. Maybe there was initially one within a bracket 🙂
I think China may be a bigger problem for Russia than Russia is for the West. Russia has 145 million people, not much production, and huge tracts of resource-rich Siberia bordering China. China has nine times as many people, a productive economy, nuclear weapons, and a surplus of young men.
Any contretemps between Russia and the West is just an open invitation for a Chinese move in the East.
Indeed PfP, in the long run, China must see Russia as a large rotating hog being roasted for them.
No US/EU involvement in the toppling of an elected President?
And the moon is made of green cheese!
They supported the Euromaidan, they did not orchestrate it, so yes, I suppose the moon really is made of green cheese then.
But more to the point… so what if the president was ‘elected’?
Yeh, of course, they “supported, not orchestrated! The CIA chief was there on holiday, obviously.
And the oil market is entirely free and not politically driven.price
“so what if the President was elected?”!!
Ok, understood, mob rule is the way forward, the sooner democracy is abolished, the better!
Russia is a threat. Of course the CIA wants Russian influence reduced. But the huge Euromaidan demonstrations against a Kremlin puppet were not created magically by the CIA, much as your friends in Moscow would love you to believe.
Huh? What does that have to do with the Ukraine?
The NSDAP was also elected. So what? A Kremlin stooge was overthrown. I have never understood this fetishism about democracy, particularly when it was so corruptly manipulated as it was under Viktor Yanukovych.
To whom is Russia a threat, and how? Please explain how it is any threat whatsoever to the UK or its interests.
I have no friends in Moscow, and simply regard Russia as a country whose leaders are seeking to advance that countrys interests, as the leaders of any country should. Why is that a problem for the UK, which has no interests in the Ukraine?
With regard to the oil price, do you not believe that the oil weapon is being used by the USA to damage Russia?
If mob rule, rather than democracy, is something you support, why do you have any difficulty at all with Putin?
Russia is a threat to Eastern Europe generally, not the UK specifically, but how is that relevant to this? This is a discussion about internal sentiments in the Ukraine.
Similar sentiments were expressed by many between 1937 and 1939.
It has more to do with the crap state of the global economy and low demand really, but I am always happy to see low oil prices.
That is a bit like saying “as you support the ownership of guns, why do you have any difficulty at all with murderers?” It is a non sequitur. I oppose tyranny, and if a political group gains power via democracy, I am against them regardless. Being elected does not provide some kind of power of moral negation, some sort of forcefield that justifies what the elected party does. A government can only be judged by its actions, not the method it took power, and if the actions are heinous enough, then something like a coup can indeed be quite a reasonable response if enough people agree… which clearly was the case given the size of the Euromaidan uprising.
So,no answer to how?
An allusion to 1937/39 in response to a view on the legitimate aims and responsibilities of leaders
A “market rules” answer to the collapse in the oil price (usually corrected by the Saudis, but not this time!)
And a preference for mob rule, provided its the right mob- to be decided by you!
So still no views on the internal politics of the Ukraine?
So not a big fan of Westphalian notions of states and borders, eh? Well neither am I, but I imagine in a rather different way to you. I certainly to not share your pro Anschluss world view about the role of leaders, but I have little objection to borders moving for very different reasons than the desires of said leaders to have more cattle and a bigger dick to swing “in the national interest”.
Sure. And keep in mind that American shale oil starts to look very questionable at $80 or lower, and guess where it is now. Saudis are more sophisticated than you think.
One man’s mob rule is another man’s revolution, so yes, some revolutions are good and some are bad. But much as I am flattered by your attribution of god-like powers to me, neither I or the CIA/State Department had the power to whistle up an event the size of the Euromaidan revolt, even though the Russian propaganda machine might like you to think otherwise with their whole ‘Dark Forces’ narrative.
Oh yes,I do have a view on the Ukraine’s internal politics. It is that, like Iraq’s, they are none of our business. We went out the world policeman business years ago, despite our Rulers not having realised it.
I am neither pro or anti Anschluss- it is entirely up to the peoples concerned. Who else should decide?
And you seriously believe that if the USA wanted the oil price up, the Saudis would disagree? The House of Saud hasn’t lasted this long by displeasing the USA. If the Sauds even suggested selling oil in anything other than dollars, they’d be out of there faster than a desert storm!
No, i didn’t suggest you have god like powers, just that you apparently apply different judgments to different mobs depending on your own view as whether the result is “good” or “bad”. In other words,an arbitrary view.
Anyway, enjoyable discussion.
But this is not a discussion about intervening in the Ukraine. I have already stated by views on that. To re-quote myself from another article:
“Yes, much like quite a few ‘libertarians’ were horrified by Saddam Hussain’s removal and the end of Ba’athist socialism in Iraq. Gotta wonder sometimes eh? I cheered when Saddam dangled. Sic Semper Tyranis etc. And I was delighted the Ukrainians got rid of the Russian puppet Yanukovych, but that does not mean the rest of the world should be sending mechanised divisions to defend Kiev.”
The Saudis are often ‘difficult’ for the USA because Riyadh has many many many cards to play, and play them it does. The USA has *NO* alternatives to the Wahhabi monarchy in Saudi Arabia, as all the alternatives are even worse (and that is really saying something), and the Saudis know it. And many commentators on the oil market have openly suggested the Saudis would love to keep oil just at the point new shale investment really ain’t worth it. Right around where it is now or maybe a tiny bit lower in other words.
“I’m convinced that Saudi Arabia wants the price of oil at $70,” said Gundlach, CEO and Chief Investment Officer of Los-Angeles-based DoubleLine. Article here.
So to get fraking on line to screw the Russians long term, that can only be done if the price of oil is heading up… not down. But oil is heading south not because the USA wants it to but rather the Saudis do.
On the contrary. My criteria for who is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is far from arbitrary, it is based on a lot of very specific notions and criteria.
Your first point: but the “West” did intervene didn’t it? Support is intervention, isn’t it? And you confirmed, as if that wasn’t obvious, that the West supported. Did they really think that would have no consequences?
“Uncle Ike” had the nous not to intervene in Hungary- but,of course, he wasn’t a neocon, and understood when not to.
No matter who owns the oil, they have to sell it to survive, particularly when it is the only product they have. Even IS can sell the stuff, as they are. The House of Saud is entirely disposable, and therefore do what they are told otherwise no more money, women and whisky.They had best enjoy it while they can!
Btw, whatever happened to the West’s newest best mate Gaddafi and his sons? Oh, yes, I remember now…. disposable!
With regard to Mr. Gundlach, no doubt he is “talking up his book”, as all bookies do. Whatever any “investment” manager says should be treated with the same respect as whatever any politician says.
As to what parameters you apply to good or bad, you haven’t provided much enlightenment, except that tyrants are “a bad thing”. Well, whoever thought they were good? But then democracy is no good either, apparently.
Nope. Saying ‘Bravo Chaps’ is support. Sending weapons is getting close to intervention. Moving a US Army Brigade and an airwing to Mariupol, that is intervention.
All the Ukrainians I know expected pretty much what is happening actually. If only they had listened to you and others counselling to just keep bending over and letting Yanukovych keep pumping, none of this inconvenient nastiness would be happening. Because he was democratically elected, right? Never mind that he threw his political opponents such as former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in jail, what does that matter given he was democratically elected! Silly Ukrainians protesters.
Tim Newman (in the oil biz) opined on that a while back, expressing what an insanely bad idea that would be. Ending up with possibly years of fighting post-House of Saud could well take the place off-line for an extended period of time, with all that implies for global prices and economies. Great news for Russia of course… hey… am I seeing a pattern emerging here regarding your views? And if the daesh Islamic State eventually ends up in control of all those oilfields (which is the likely alternative as Salafism really ain’t that different to Wahhabism), there will be somewhere between zero and no outside oil workers, with all that implies for long term production. Plus with whatever our Salafist chums do manage to pump and sell, you will now have a group that makes Osama Bin Ladin look like Mary Poppins making billions and billions to help make their lunatic dreams of a global caliphate a reality. They will fail of course but damn it will be messy.
Indeed. I love how he ended up, it had a very ‘Mussolini’ quality to it. Sic semper tyrannis. But hang on… did you think Gaddafi was a ‘stabilising influence’? Really? As in… never invaded neighbours or caused planes to blow up over the UK or sent weapons to Irish terrorist or any such malarkey? But yeah I am sure you are right, nothing to do with Britain.
He is hardly the only one saying it, to put it mildly. Moreover I always hear (from people whose arguments are rather like yours usually) about how it is the oil interests behind those dirty neo-cons who make all of decisions in US foreign policy. Well US oil interests do NOT want oil under $100. They must all be off on holiday or something at some Bilderberg ski resort, or maybe Obama stopped taking their calls. Or maybe the Saudis just don’t give a shit because their production costs are lower.
You have more than ten years of articles by me explaining where I am coming from here on Samizdata. If you can’t be bothered, I sure as hell can’t be bothered either.
If it produces an authoritarian thug-in-chief, that is correct, no good at all by definition. Democracy is a tool, not an end in and of itself, and only a viable tool if everyone, particularly the winners, plays by the rules: which Yanukovych did not. If a nation has weak corrupt institutions that are no check on whichever turd gets elected, and said turd then promptly imprisons his political enemies, it is preposterous to wring your hands over trashing democracy in order to replace such a government with something even slightly better. Revolt and lustration are really the only way to try and fix such a situation.
Sorry, “short intermission while we bomb our target” as Bob Lewis wrote.
The “they” I was referring to, was the West. Mess about with someone else’s interests, there will be consequences -there have been, mainly for the EU. What was the phrase, oh yeh, “fuck the EU”, well, the Yanks actions sure have done that!
The only pattern to my views is that if ain’t in our interests, its nowt to do with us! But yes, the US regards, and uses oil as a weapon, and exerts pressure and influence to do so. It would be mad not to. And the Saudis will last until they are no further use. So no, I’m not a supporter of Putin, Russia, the EU, the USA, just want the UK not be “America’s” streetwalker” in Le Carres phrase, or anyone else’s.
Again, as far as I can see, your views are that because it is flawed, democracy is, by definition, no good. The problem is that there is no system which actually will produce what you want. Sure as hell, our alleged democracy doesn’t.O e
Have you just ‘reset’? ‘The Yanks’ did not cause what happened in the Ukraine, Russia and people in the Ukraine did that: Russia by messing with Ukrainian ‘interests’ and a large popular mass movement based around Euromaidan by declining to accept they are Russian vassals.
Then you are not seeing very far. And you are not reading what I am actually writing. If a given democracy produces tyranny, I think that is pretty much by definition a democracy that is ‘no good’. Just because constitutional democracy works in, say, Switzerland, it does not follow that democracy must be seen as some sacred institution that imparts complete legitimacy for the actions of a state, no manner how heinous. That is what I am suggesting. Overthrowing tyranny is good, and it matters not a damn if it was an elected tyranny.