[spacecrafty]

You're whack.

[YmolafBp]

Or else the capitalists were evil, and just wanted to exploit russia as much as possible 'right now'*.

JM
*back in the 90s

[StitlyDute]

Did all their businesses and property get bought up by a few?

JM

[CGECngjA]

Russia pissed on the offer.

I know many many Russians who left to come over here, and all of them, the most important thing is that Russia had the opportunity to join the economic system of the west.

There's no excuse for having to invade your neighbour, who has been peaceful.

Here's a fact. Russia's time has passed. For all the posturing of Putin, Russia is far weaker then she was 20 years previous, and weaker then she was 10 years ago.

Have you forgotten that the west let you in G8 despite not having the economy to justify entry, or the political freedoms?

I have no animosity towards Russians. I went to a Mennonite church comprised of Russian emigres for some time. I can say with a straight face that I love Georgia and I love Russia but I hate Putin.

If Russia wants to go at it alone, she is doing her best to drive away her allies.

[TZids16I]

There are counterexamples. But in any event, as relates to this thread, did Slovenia get Marshall Plan style help from the US?

[teridbruse]

So is the Czech Republic. As far as I can tell, the Czechs' move away from Communism was dramatic.

Edit: Congratulations. It was probably all those car factories pumping out Yugos.

[Discus]

Again, did the US provide Marshall Plan-style aid to Slovenia?

[RsQhyZyR]

Originally posted by DanS

Edit: Congratulations. It was probably all those car factories pumping out Yugos.

That was rather funny.


Unless you are serious.

[vNQmO2BF]

I agree, we could have made Russia into a solid ally. Instead we wanted to exploit, an we will have russia as a not freind.

JM

[koebforfrn]

Nope. We did it ourselves, with very little aid. You see. No need of Marshall Plan-style help from the US.

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Why do you think providing Russia such aid would have been bad? I mean it turned out great with Germany and Japan, they are your close allies to this day. What is the evidence that it would have been good? How can you say it wouldn't have been "throwing good money after bad"? The system needed to change. US money may not have been helpful in changing the system. In fact, it may have been counterproductive.

Germany and Japan had economic systems that were relatively close to our own. Communism was light years from our form of capitalism.

[FoetAgerhot46]

I do think that pushing Russia to liberalize aggressively was a major mistake. A byproduct of this was that we encouraged Yeltsin to centralize power in the Presidency, and away from the more conservative Duma. Leading to the autocratic status quo.

The other major mistake was the expansion of NATO into the Warsaw Pact. This conception of NATO as an anti-Russian alliance has partially contributed to the resurgent nationalism.

[videolkif]

It seems that shock therapy was a mistake, at least for Russia.

The idea of a Marshall Plan is interesting, but the flipside is that we'd have wanted things for our money (we did with the original MP). Russia is nationalistic enough to have resented that and refused. So I don't think a MP was a realistic possibility.

Besides, as you put it yourself:

No, we didn't choose freedom, we chose jeans, cola and bubble gum. This, and we stopped executing senior party leaders, which allowed a spineless idiot to get to the top. Yeah, the one with a birthmark. So, what would the basis for the "juggernaut" of an alliance you speak of?

Look, I was (and remain) all for friendship with Russia. My highschool went on a trip in... 1991 or '92 (right after the failed coup with Yeltsin on the Tank and all that). It was great. Friendship was in the air. But national alliances come about and last because of common interests.

I absolutely agree that mistakes were made in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I too am disappointed in how things have gone. But it takes two to tango, and I'm sorry, but I doubt your willingness to dance...

-Arrian

[qQVXpYM6]

Originally posted by onodera

...

Also, back then there was a lot of political freedom here. Nothing good came out of it.


...
but he's the best ruler we had since that guy from Gori... Two statements that show why NATO expansion was a good thing and why Russian Nationalism is bad for the world.

[geasurpacerma]

Out of the former Soviet Bloc it looks like half are enjoying Western prosperity now, a quarter are on the way, and a quarter are wallowing in a backwardness of their own making.

Seems pretty good considering the former state of things.

[viagra_generic]

I agree that it is easier to do a u-turn in a mini then in a big truck but the reality is Russia didn't even try. When exactly did it become legal to own land in Russia? The very, very end of the Yelsin era? The beginning of the Putin era?

In other words a decade after everyone else had already made this very initial step to a market economy. I call that not trying.

[payowlirriply]

We had been able to keep up with you in the arms race... Not really.

That's a huge lot of industrial capacity which could be used instead of China's. A lot of it is gone now. It was woefully inefficient when it existed. It had to be converted into something useful in a capitalistic global economy. Would a "Marshall Plan" have succeeded in doing that? I don't know. Maybe, but I rather doubt it was feasible in the first place (Bebro put it better than me - once we started talking about "oversight" it would've been all over).

Russia has oil, you buy gas for 4$ a gallon. Good for you. Are you implying that you'd have been selling to us cheaper if we'd made nicey nice with you 15 years ago? If so, I call bullshit.

Together we would have enough nukes to dictate our will to the whole world. I know this may be difficult for you to understand or believe, but we don't want that.

edit: and even if we did, there is no such thing as having enough nukes to dictate to the world. MAD doesn't work like that.

-Arrian

[MartZubok]

Originally posted by Arrian
edit: and even if we did, there is no such thing as having enough nukes to dictate to the world. MAD doesn't work like that.

-Arrian Does China have enough nukes to ensure MAD?

[tq4F7YKs]

Originally posted by onodera

Does China have enough nukes to ensure MAD? That is debatable, I think ... they have enough to effectively have MAD, whether they actually do or not in an actual nuclear situation is a bit more complex. I believe political scientists have treated them as MAD-capable since around 2000.

When I studied this (around that time), they had around a hundred nukes, and were considered not quite MAD capable, but strong enough that they were treated as one of the MAD group anyway, as it would be difficult to guarantee obliteration of their entire stockpile (one of the requirements of MAD). I presume they have more now.

[rostpribru]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is right. The US liked you better as an enemy. Things worked better. Nice twist on my words, Kid.

I'm sure you know what I actually meant. But there is a kernel of truth to your statement: there is definitely a group of Americans (to say nothing of Russians!) that yearns for the Cold War.

-Arrian

[banditorfv]

Well, what with our own human rights violations and Saudi Arabia, I don't know that we'd have much space for another monster in our closet anyway. Which isn't to say I like the thought of Russia as an enemy; ideally they should be like running into your ex at a party--chilly but civil.