| > - The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs"). They had the same policies in Russia as in other parts of the former Soviet Union. And in many places the much attacked 'Schock Thearapy' actually worked, see the Baltics, Poland and so on. The simple fact is, the oligarchs were strong in Russia. They barley had any legal system, they had 10x more former KGB members then judges. To blame the US for Oligarchs is utterly ridiculous. Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conquered Germany or Japan. And the actual influence of the US was far more limited then some people (including Russian) claim. And the whole reason, the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place, was because the oligarchs didn't want to defend it and were happy to get rid of it because then they could buy German cars and French wine easier. > - The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership. You seem to be one of those that only looks as states as acting. This is simply not the case. People act. Just because a leader is democratically elected, doesn't mean people can't go to the streets and demand they leave. And that includes people who initially voted for them. You are just repeating absurd Russian propaganda that all anti-Russian protest and organization are a CIA plot. The idea that the CIA has these magical powers where the can just create popular revolution out of nowhere is nonsense, its only believed by dictators and maybe the CIA itself. The reason for the colored revolutions are quite simply that Russian gansters/oligarchs try to control and dominate those states and victimize its population, against the democratic will of the people. See this in action right now in Georgia. This isn't history, you are just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. Because I mean for sure, the only reason somebody could be against 'GREAT RUSSIA' is that they are a paid spy. Do you also believe this was the reasons for the popular revolutions against the Soviet Union? > - The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks. Oh so now Putin is the poor victim of internal pressure? You got to be kidding me. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to. Recreating the Russian empire was Putins goal from the beginning. The only difference was that early on he hoped to do it with Western buy in and that they would care that Russia builds a 'Sphere of Incidence'. And if the US and others were as strategic about trying to create a war, why was the response to Crimea in 2014 so limited? This position again, just pure Russian and Putin propaganda with no basis in reality. Bioweapons, you got to be brain-dead to believe that. You are deep-deep down the Russian conspiracy rabbit-hole. > - Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war And yet most in the US government thought that Russia would win quickly and lost cause was put forward as an argument why giving them weapons is pointless. And please, show me these official documents that claim this. > isolate it via sanctions Why then were they so hesitant to sanction Russia over Crimea and Syria? If this was US strategy, they could have done far more far earlier. The claim that there was this grand strategy by US to destroy Russia is nonsense, its simply not factual. Maybe some element and people in the US thought so. But there is and was an even larger trend that hoped to eventually align Russia with Europe against China in the future. You are basically cherry picking every possible thing on one side of the argument, while ignoring all the others. US policy has been far from consistent on this and they never had an explicit policy of trying to balkanize Russia. Please show me primary first hand evidence that this was policy at any point. Your story is what happening in the head of Russian conspiracy theorists, but it has no bases in actual history. This is basically the whole Rome only thought defensive wars and conquered most of the known world. Always be the play the victim even if you are clearly the perpetrator. Some people might buy it. > I'm just interested in the facts of history. The 'facts' brought to you by the Russian propaganda machine maybe and while ignoring many other facts at. the same time. > I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children. No its actual called simply real politics and its not a children story. Sometimes leadership of countries are simply not nice, they are self interested and they don't give a shit about the people who will be harmed by what they are doing. Russia is 'strong' and threw its history it beat up on its weaker Neighbors, why the fuck do you think Russia is so big? What is a story for children is your story, one where these weak neighbors anytime they disagree with Russia are instantly called puppets of the Ottoman, the British, the Germans or the US. As Russia has done for all of its history. Stalin famous position was that small states don't exist, they are either Soviet puppets or British puppets. And Putin is using this exact same logic. And you seem to do so too. Generally a pretty good checkup on who is 'good' and who is 'bad', I suggest you look at who sent an army over border and started instantly victimizing the population. But you are above such simple moral judgment. You understand that the US was sponsoring a "Transgender Theater" in Kharkiv or whatever and that of course was all part of the CIA pyops against Russia, so they had to go in and slaughter 100000s of people. Congratulation you rationalized yourself into supporting the largest offensive war in European history since WW2 and you claim the clear and obvious aggressor isn't actually bad. > "for no reasons whatsoever" Yeah this is like if I say to you 'your dumb' and then you pull out a gun shoot me in the head, and before court you say 'I had good reason to shoot'. > Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid. Again whenever people say '100%' of course its never true. But your line of argument is not about if its 90% or 95%. The arguments you are putting forward are exactly the arguments that people use that want to justify Russia and sometimes even claim Ukraine was to blame outright. |
I don't claim that all Western foreign policy is unified. There are ascendant factions at different moments. For the moment the China hawks are back in the driver's seat of US foreign policy and the Atlanticists are out of power for now. But Ukraine policy has been driven (very effectively) by that faction of neoconservatives for over a decade. Get a subscription to Foreign Affairs if you want the consensus opinion of State, DoD, CIA. It matters little that there are diverse opinions, only which opinions drive policy.
I don't think "only states act". Rather, the populace is a player that can be leveraged by those controlling state power. Much of the recent foreign aid debacle is about shedding some light on how these slush funds operate to both launder bribes and to fund foreign influence operations. I don't think Russia is the only power that tries to project influence abroad. Every state tries to do so for its own interests.
That said, there is rarely unity in the population. The US had a recent "people in the streets" moment and two things are both true about that. First, many, many people (perhaps a majority) did not agree with "popular opinion" so called. Not just with the more radical expressions of it but the overall framework. Second, much of the "organic" appearance of those protests were in fact astroturfed. I know several "community organizers" who were active in "getting people out in the streets" and they are currently lamenting their dried up funding. It's mostly fake. The masses will not spontaneously gather for more than a moment without organized activism keeping them on message. So, please. It is a fantasy.
It's also a fantasy that leadership is ever nice. Sovereign politics are in a state of nature. That is, a war of all against all. If some have elected to cooperate, it is because it is in their interest to do so, not because their leadership is "nice". Those are bedtime stories.
Your "primary first hand evidence" demand is a bit lazy but you can find general neoconservative policy (btw all consensus US foreign policy is neoconservative) explained in the Project for a New American Century or by carefully reading policy papers published by RAND on the topic. Or as mentioned Foreign Affairs magazine as a popularizer and influence on public opinion.
I doubt you'll take the time to upgrade your mental software but for any other readers, here are some sources that specifically deal with US post cold war policy in eastern Europe, including Ukraine and Russia.
1992 Defense Planning Guide (the Wolfowitz Papers) or read about it on Wikipedia for some choice quotes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
1994 speech by Bill Clinton "A whole Europe and Free" outlines plans for NATO expansion.
1995 State Department report on NATO Enlargement.
1995 National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement
2002 National Security Strategy document by Condoleeza Rice and Wolfowitz.
Orchestrated color revolutions as a tactic of regime change are implied as tools of democracy by influential neocon Natan Sharansky in his book The Case for Democracy from 2004. NED and USAID we're created to as cold war influence weapons abroad. The OG Orange color revolution in Ukraine wa in 2004, iirc. But that's just a coincidence, right?
Anyway, go read some stuff or don't. I can't hope to help someone so prejudiced. But maybe someone else can benefit from this exchange.