Russians. What ???

[Ellen Brown]

I'll freely admit that Americans are profoundly ignorant about who the Russian people are. Right or wrong, our governments have been at loggerheads the whole of my life. Are they still mad at us for buying Alaska for a ridiculously low price? Considering all the Gold and Oil up there, maybe so? I was not even a gleam in anyone's eye then, so it can not be my fault.

So, then there was WWII and lend/lease and all that. Did Russia get a good deal or did we screw them? I do not know?

Then came all the baggage after WWII. There was Sputnik, and then all the Nuclear Testing. What were we thinking? What a waste of Money and even now, we do not know how much we hurt the World?

Now there is Drump and Putin and that whole sickening mess. Did you know the major Religion in Russia is Orthodoxy?

Biblically, I think I understand that Russia is supposed to be one of the major players in the battles of the End times.

Right now I am not sure if it is America or Russia that are the biggest crooks?

I do like the Pop Star, Emin a lot though.

 

[Estro Felino]

Right now I am not sure if it is America or Russia that are the biggest crooks?
.

neither...
They should be strong allies because their cooperation is fruitful for the west

 

[suncowiam]

neither...
They should be strong allies because their cooperation is fruitful for the west

Cooperation with the Russians is fruitful?

In what sense? How exactly are the Russians going to help any society?

Do we need oil? Do we need weapons?

Go ahead and spell this out for us.

 

[Ellen Brown]

neither...
They should be strong allies because their cooperation is fruitful for the west

Agreed. Not sure who most needs a whipping.

 

[Salvador]

Cooperation with the Russians is fruitful?

In what sense? How exactly are the Russians going to help any society?

Do we need oil? Do we need weapons?

Go ahead and spell this out for us.

America and Russia are the world's greatest nuclear superpowers; we also have a common military adversary that is Islamic extremism. So then, for these reason we should get along together.

 

[Stevicus]

I'll freely admit that Americans are profoundly ignorant about who the Russian people are. Right or wrong, our governments have been at loggerheads the whole of my life. Are they still mad at us for buying Alaska for a ridiculously low price? Considering all the Gold and Oil up there, maybe so? I was not even a gleam in anyone's eye then, so it can not be my fault.

So, then there was WWII and lend/lease and all that. Did Russia get a good deal or did we screw them? I do not know?

Then came all the baggage after WWII. There was Sputnik, and then all the Nuclear Testing. What were we thinking? What a waste of Money and even now, we do not know how much we hurt the World?

Now there is Drump and Putin and that whole sickening mess. Did you know the major Religion in Russia is Orthodoxy?

Biblically, I think I understand that Russia is supposed to be one of the major players in the battles of the End times.

Right now I am not sure if it is America or Russia that are the biggest crooks?

I do like the Pop Star, Emin a lot though.

As far as Alaska goes, it was causing a lot of problems for the Russians. Alaska turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. Even when we bought it, it was an unpopular decision. "Seward's Folly," they called it.

Here's a fun fact: Among the major powers of Europe at the time of U.S. Independence, Russia was the last of them to recognize the United States government. In turn, the U.S. was the last major power to recognize the government of the Soviet Union.

One thing that may have earned the Russians' ire was the fact that the U.S. sent troops as part of the Allied intervention force, on the side of the Whites against the Reds in the Russian Civil War. Most Americans aren't even aware that that ever happened.

Still, the U.S. and Russia were allies in WW2. But a major sticky point between the Russians and Americans was how to handle post-war Germany. The Russians suffered greatly due to the German invasion, so they wanted to ensure that Germany could never again make war on Russia as they did. They wanted their entire industry and infrastructure dismantled, which would have made Germany into a giant goat pasture.

The US and UK instead wanted to rebuild Germany and make them an effective buffer against Soviet expansionism. From the Soviet point of view, they thought that they, too, would need a buffer, since they weren't really sure what the U.S. intentions were. The U.S. thought the Soviet Union was going to try to take over the whole world, so our overall policy was one of "containment," in which we would try to contain the spread of communism by forming alliances that would encircle the communist world from East Asia to Europe, as well as use diplomatic and/or covert means to prevent pro-Western governments from being overthrown or usurped by communists.

Our presumption was that the Soviets were inciting and fomenting insurrections and communist movements around the world. There was also a war of propaganda, with both sides touting the virtues of their own system, not unlike two competing missionaries.

Then there was the nuclear arms race, which fortunately never resulted in nuclear war. Each side was worried about the other launching some kind of massive attack. I remember growing up and hearing about how the Soviets could attack the U.S. in some kind of "Red Dawn" scenario or by barrage of nuclear missiles. As a kid, I was worried that we didn't have enough missiles, and that ours weren't as big as their missiles, yet I was comforted in the knowledge that our missiles were more accurate.

 

[Estro Felino]

As far as Alaska goes, it was causing a lot of problems for the Russians. Alaska turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. Even when we bought it, it was an unpopular decision. "Seward's Folly," they called it.

Here's a fun fact: Among the major powers of Europe at the time of U.S. Independence, Russia was the last of them to recognize the United States government. In turn, the U.S. was the last major power to recognize the government of the Soviet Union.

One thing that may have earned the Russians' ire was the fact that the U.S. sent troops as part of the Allied intervention force, on the side of the Whites against the Reds in the Russian Civil War. Most Americans aren't even aware that that ever happened.

Still, the U.S. and Russia were allies in WW2. But a major sticky point between the Russians and Americans was how to handle post-war Germany. The Russians suffered greatly due to the German invasion, so they wanted to ensure that Germany could never again make war on Russia as they did. They wanted their entire industry and infrastructure dismantled, which would have made Germany into a giant goat pasture.

The US and UK instead wanted to rebuild Germany and make them an effective buffer against Soviet expansionism. From the Soviet point of view, they thought that they, too, would need a buffer, since they weren't really sure what the U.S. intentions were. The U.S. thought the Soviet Union was going to try to take over the whole world, so our overall policy was one of "containment," in which we would try to contain the spread of communism by forming alliances that would encircle the communist world from East Asia to Europe, as well as use diplomatic and/or covert means to prevent pro-Western governments from being overthrown or usurped by communists.

Our presumption was that the Soviets were inciting and fomenting insurrections and communist movements around the world. There was also a war of propaganda, with both sides touting the virtues of their own system, not unlike two competing missionaries.

Then there was the nuclear arms race, which fortunately never resulted in nuclear war. Each side was worried about the other launching some kind of massive attack. I remember growing up and hearing about how the Soviets could attack the U.S. in some kind of "Red Dawn" scenario or by barrage of nuclear missiles. As a kid, I was worried that we didn't have enough missiles, and that ours weren't as big as their missiles, yet I was comforted in the knowledge that our missiles were more accurate.

Interesting. I think Russian Bolshevism was evil...so we were lucky that the Americans liberated us (so we fell under their influence zone).
Nevertheless we had two very influential left-wing-parties, the Partito Comunista Italiano and the Partito Socialista Italiano . The first was directly connected to Soviet Union, the second was pro-West, and pro-capitalism.

 

[Ellen Brown]

America and Russia are the world's greatest nuclear superpowers; we also have a common military adversary that is Islamic extremism. So then, for these reason we should get along together.

Not sure about a mutual war against Islamics. It seems like Riyad or where ever the Sauds are might be the source of most extremism? These major religious sites are a source of confusion and frustration for me. Sometimes, in my dismay, I wonder if something destructive happening to Makkah and Jerusalem would make people take a breath? My patience for Muslims violating their own book is worn thin.

Not sure if some action against Iran's religious leaders would accomplish much.

I am just sick to death of the Religious folk making all the wars. The Muslims I know are peaceful.

 

[Jumi]

In Soviet times it was "the Russians" who were out to get you and spread the gospel of Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist) message by gun and manipulation. Some old hatred are hard to give up, when there are things built "in case of Russians" it's not like those will go away just because they stopped believing in their religion and became Christians again. Also they have a huge amount of natural wealth.

 

[Estro Felino]

In Soviet times it was "the Russians" who were out to get you and spread the gospel of Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist) message by gun and manipulation. Some old hatred are hard to give up, when there are things built "in case of Russians" it's not like those will go away just because they stopped believing in their religion and became Christians again. Also they have a huge amount of natural wealth.

You complain and you ignore how lucky you are, living next to them.
We'd do anything to become a Russian colony, since they are the only ones interested in preserving the Christian-European Civilization, nowadays.

 

[Jumi]

You complain and you ignore how lucky you are, living next to them.

I don't actually complain about them even though my family has had more reason to hate them than most who have rivalries to other nations. I just pointed at the facts of why Americans and Russians are opposed are historical. Even if people wanted to try fix things, it wouldn't happen because old habits die hard.

We'd do anything to become a Russian colony, since they are the only ones interested in preserving the Christian-European Civilization, nowadays.

That is... interesting. I'm rather with my own country to the end than trust some other country to "take care" of our worries like a big brother.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting. I think Russian Bolshevism was evil...so we were lucky that the Americans liberated us (so we fell under their influence zone).
Nevertheless we had two very influential left-wing-parties, the Partito Comunista Italiano and the Partito Socialista Italiano . The first was directly connected to Soviet Union, the second was pro-West, and pro-capitalism.

I don't think they were evil as much as they were vindictive. At first, all they really wanted was peace, land, and bread. But even before the Bolsheviks took over, Russia had a long history of being invaded by outsiders, so their policy of wanting to protect themselves and their territory was understandable.

In the West, we saw them as aggressive and expansionist, but I think we grossly misread their intentions, which is what propelled us into 40+ years of Cold War. That was an unfortunate thing that never had to happen. The consequences it had on our economy, as well as our national psyche and ways of looking at the world, are with us still. People sometimes wonder why we still have troops all over the world and why the US is so militaristic, but it's all due to a collective paranoia on the part of our political leadership and ruling class.

 

[Jumi]

I don't think they were evil as much as they were vindictive. At first, all they really wanted was peace, land, and bread. But even before the Bolsheviks took over, Russia had a long history of being invaded by outsiders, so their policy of wanting to protect themselves and their territory was understandable.

If only they were like that, instead they took over the Baltics, invaded Poland and Finland. They were the farthest thing from peaceful. When Soviet Union bombed Afghanistan the fans of SU said they were "bombs of peace" so they weren't bad. Everything was explained away by agitators. It was exactly the same way of thinking how people think that some empires civilized "savages" by killing and looting them out of existence.

In the West, we saw them as aggressive and expansionist, but I think we grossly misread their intentions, which is what propelled us into 40+ years of Cold War. That was an unfortunate thing that never had to happen. The consequences it had on our economy, as well as our national psyche and ways of looking at the world, are with us still. People sometimes wonder why we still have troops all over the world and why the US is so militaristic, but it's all due to a collective paranoia on the part of our political leadership and ruling class.

I think many people knew exactly their intentions. Not to say that the US wasn't at fault, there is the saying that there were two empires fighting over which was the worse.

 

[Stevicus]

If only they were like that, instead they took over the Baltics, invaded Poland and Finland. They were the farthest thing from peaceful. When Soviet Union bombed Afghanistan the fans of SU said they were "bombs of peace" so they weren't bad. Everything was explained away by agitators. It was exactly the same way of thinking how people think that some empires civilized "savages" by killing and looting them out of existence.

But there were reasons behind what they did, and they could just as easily be interpreted as defensive. Germany was clearly an aggressive power, and they also believed the US and other Western powers as aggressive and hostile towards the Soviet Union. Considering their history, it's not all that surprising that they would try to maintain the same buffer zone that they had since Tsarist times (back when the Baltics, Poland, and Finland were all part of the Russian Empire anyway).

But that, in and of itself, did not automatically mean that the Soviets were planning to invade the rest of Europe, which is what US Cold Warriors often believed. The Soviets believed that the West was going to attack them (and there were US generals like Patton and MacArthur who were publicly advocating that). MacArthur threatened to use nukes. Then there were maniacs like Joe McCarthy leading the call for some kind of "holy crusade" against the Russians, so their wary attitude of suspicion towards the West seems explainable on those terms.

The Cold War was, among other things, a giant chess game between the US and USSR - and it was extremely unfortunate that many other nations ended up as pawns in the rivalry between the superpowers. In the case of the Baltics, Poland, and Finland, those invasions were a part of the overall circumstances caused by the aggression of Nazi Germany. I wouldn't characterize those invasions as "peaceful," but if their overall goal was the defense of the Soviet Union, creating such a buffer zone would make sense, strategically speaking.

I'm not saying that makes it right, although as an American, I find it difficult to pass judgment on them, since we've done many of the same things ourselves. We've invaded and interfered with many of our own neighbors here in the Western Hemisphere, and much of it was justified as "defensive," since many of these countries were vulnerable to outside interference. As the Spanish Empire crumbled, we moved in to fill the power vacuum - justified by the idea that if we didn't do it, some other major power would. Unfortunate, but that's how things often happen.

I think many people knew exactly their intentions. Not to say that the US wasn't at fault, there is the saying that there were two empires fighting over which was the worse.

I honestly believe that the Soviets never had any real intention of wanting to launch a massive invasion of Western Europe, which is what many Cold War leaders believed. The Soviets may have wanted civil discord in the West, perhaps in the hope that the West would fall apart on its own and possibly even have their own internal communist revolutions. Apart from that, they seemed content to chip away at the diminishing Western imperial/colonial hegemony in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

But both sides tried to be careful in avoiding any direct, massive confrontation. I think they were more afraid of us than we were of them. Their intentions seemed to revolve around wanting to avoid the massive destruction and death they experienced in the last war, so it seems unlikely they would have supported a suicidal course of action which would have brought untold destruction upon them.

 

[Jumi]

But there were reasons behind what they did, and they could just as easily be interpreted as defensive. Germany was clearly an aggressive power, and they also believed the US and other Western powers as aggressive and hostile towards the Soviet Union. Considering their history, it's not all that surprising that they would try to maintain the same buffer zone that they had since Tsarist times (back when the Baltics, Poland, and Finland were all part of the Russian Empire anyway).

So attacking someone neutral can also be interpreted as being defensive?

I honestly believe that the Soviets never had any real intention of wanting to launch a massive invasion of Western Europe, which is what many Cold War leaders believed. The Soviets may have wanted civil discord in the West, perhaps in the hope that the West would fall apart on its own and possibly even have their own internal communist revolutions. Apart from that, they seemed content to chip away at the diminishing Western imperial/colonial hegemony in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

A land invasion does sound like a naive idea after the atom bombs and cold war as well as proxy wars and submission of their vassals quite expected. I don't buy into the "forced hand" idea though. It's used quite often to justify just about anything from genocide to slavery.

But both sides tried to be careful in avoiding any direct, massive confrontation. I think they were more afraid of us than we were of them. Their intentions seemed to revolve around wanting to avoid the massive destruction and death they experienced in the last war, so it seems unlikely they would have supported a suicidal course of action which would have brought untold destruction upon them.

Yes, they tried to avoid direct confrontations because both sides knew that it would be a lose-lose scenario. So they made places like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... places where they could vent some pressure.

 

[Flankerl]

Russia had a long history of being invaded by outsiders

That's the story of every single country on earth and Russia is not special in any way.

But there were reasons behind what they did, and they could just as easily be interpreted as defensive.

What?
Oh hell no.
Between 1917 and 1921 the Ukrainian - Soviet War happened. Soviet troops invaded the Ukrainian People's Republic, annexed most of it.
Then there was the Finnish Civil War in which the Soviets supported the local Communists.
Then the Soviet Westwards Offensive of 1918-19 in which they tried to take Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus.
This directly led to the Polish-Soviet War, apparently the Poles were getting a bit disturbed by what happened to their very neighbours.
In 1920 Azerbaijan and Armenia were invaded.
One year later Georgia.
The same year they intervened in the Mongolian Civil War.

Yeah that's really defensive. I mean if we look at it like that, Germany was quite defensive themselves.

But that, in and of itself, did not automatically mean that the Soviets were planning to invade the rest of Europe, which is what US Cold Warriors often believed.

Mostly because they couldn't as their invasions in the Baltics and Poland had failed.
Lenin explicitly wanted to conquer these areas so that they could "support" their Communist brothers and sisters in central Europe.
After WW2 NATO was right at the border so all they could send as support were ideological support and of course terror support.
And would you look at that, they did exactly that.

In the case of the Baltics, Poland, and Finland, those invasions were a part of the overall circumstances caused by the aggression of Nazi Germany. I wouldn't characterize those invasions as "peaceful," but if their overall goal was the defense of the Soviet Union, creating such a buffer zone would make sense, strategically speaking.

That's one way to explain the literal enslavement of millions of people.

I mean they just had to do it. They could've of course just returned home and leave these countries to their inhabitants. But nah. Why bother.

 

[Stevicus]

So attacking someone neutral can also be interpreted as being defensive?

Yes, under the circumstances I outlined. I didn't say that it was right or fair to the neutral countries in question, but when looking at the larger picture, it's explainable.

A land invasion does sound like a naive idea after the atom bombs and cold war as well as proxy wars and submission of their vassals quite expected. I don't buy into the "forced hand" idea though. It's used quite often to justify just about anything from genocide to slavery.

Keep in mind that the context of the OP's question was about US-Russian relations specifically.

Yes, they tried to avoid direct confrontations because both sides knew that it would be a lose-lose scenario. So they made places like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... places where they could vent some pressure.

A lot of these conflicts related to the Cold War were an outgrowth of colonialism and/or the fallout from WW2, which neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union actually started. The world was in quite a mess in the years following WW2, and that mess was mostly caused by other countries.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Yes, under the circumstances I outlined. I didn't say that it was right or fair to the neutral countries in question, but when looking at the larger picture, it's explainable.



Keep in mind that the context of the OP's question was about US-Russian relations specifically.



A lot of these conflicts related to the Cold War were an outgrowth of colonialism and/or the fallout from WW2, which neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union actually started. The world was in quite a mess in the years following WW2, and that mess was mostly caused by other countries.

Perhaps a lot of this was caused by continued hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Why doesn't the world just step back and let them brawl it out? Saudi Arabia is around 30 million and Iran is around 80 million.

 

[Stevicus]

That's the story of every single country on earth and Russia is not special in any way.

They've been invaded more than we have. It's certainly not the story of every single country on Earth. You're clearly exaggerating here.

What?
Oh hell no.
Between 1917 and 1921 the Ukrainian - Soviet War happened. Soviet troops invaded the Ukrainian People's Republic, annexed most of it.

The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1917. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire prior to that, so it was already annexed a long time before. Some refer to that period as the Russian Civil War.

Then there was the Finnish Civil War in which the Soviets supported the local Communists.
Then the Soviet Westwards Offensive of 1918-19 in which they tried to take Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus.

It was the Russian Civil War, and it's natural that it would involve the various provinces which were within the falling Russian Empire, which the Whites were trying to restore to power, along with the help of people from the republics you listed above, not to mention Germans, Czechs, British, Japanese, and even Americans. It was quite an international convention for a while. So, the Reds fought back. What else could anyone expect them to do?

This directly led to the Polish-Soviet War, apparently the Poles were getting a bit disturbed by what happened to their very neighbours.
In 1920 Azerbaijan and Armenia were invaded.
One year later Georgia.
The same year they intervened in the Mongolian Civil War.

It was all part of the same overall struggle, which was a civil war within the former Russian Empire, which encompassed all of the territories you mention, except for Mongolia. But then again, considering what the Mongols did to Russia, I guess they're even now.

Yeah that's really defensive. I mean if we look at it like that, Germany was quite defensive themselves.

It was a civil war. It didn't really threaten America, though, nor did it really threaten the Western Allies at that particular time. The peculiar irony to the arguments you're making here is that, if the Bolsheviks had not taken power and Russia remained in the war until the end, the territory of the Russian Empire would have remained intact, and none of the countries you listed above would ever have had even a glimmer of independence. There would have been no need for the Russians to "invade" Finland or Ukraine, since those territories already belonged to them.

Mostly because they couldn't as their invasions in the Baltics and Poland had failed.
Lenin explicitly wanted to conquer these areas so that they could "support" their Communist brothers and sisters in central Europe.
After WW2 NATO was right at the border so all they could send as support were ideological support and of course terror support.
And would you look at that, they did exactly that.

I believe that question was about how the relationship between America and Russia deteriorated and whether or not Russia is/was an actual threat to the United States. My main point was that I don't think the Russians were willing or able to bite off more than they could chew, neither in the Revolution/Civil War period, nor during WW2, nor during the peak of the Cold War.

I've always thought that the key thing in understanding one's adversaries is to try to put yourself in their shoes - to try to look at the world as they might see it. They have their point of view. We have ours. We were allies at one time, and there have been times when we've been able to see eye to eye and reach agreement.

We were very much caught up in an ideological war ourselves, and we did things to other countries as well, all in the name of fighting communism. We also had thousands of nuclear warheads on standby, just in case they were needed. The whole nuclear question was what likely gave a lot of people pause to consider whether it was really worth the risk of taking the world to the brink of total destruction.

That's one way to explain the literal enslavement of millions of people.

I mean they just had to do it. They could've of course just returned home and leave these countries to their inhabitants. But nah. Why bother.

Ultimately, what happened to the countries in question was more the result of the actions of Germany and the Axis Powers in WW2. It wasn't the Russians' fault that the Nazis rose to power in Germany; I think they were rooting for the Communists to come to power, but that was not to be. During the war, the Soviets moved into territories which were either occupied by the Germans or part of the Axis itself.

Sure, they could have just returned home after the war. But they might have worried that if they withdrew from those countries, the US could possibly station troops there. They would have seen that as a potential threat.

 

[Shad]

Right now I am not sure if it is America or Russia that are the biggest crooks?

America. Russia is just open about it. With America you find out after the fact.