timelets: (Default)
timelets ([personal profile] timelets) wrote2018-07-17 12:16 am
Entry tags:

Foolish and Stupid Americans Ruined Relationships with Russia



- Litvinenko poisoning
- Annexation of Crimea
- War in Donbass
- The downing of the Malaysian Boeing
- Chemical attacks in Syria
- Elections hacking
- Novichok poisoning

lxe: (Default)

[personal profile] lxe 2018-07-17 08:52 am (UTC)(link)
The Magnitsky Act, in this perspective, was a gravely belated step in the right direction.
I am not the right person to tell when exactly it went too late. In 1991/1992 no particular road had been taken, and any could yet be. By 1996, it was observationally confirmed that the civilized world (quote the phrase or not) would accept any Russian administration as long as it doesn't play hammer and sickle. There was a possibility of escape in 1998/1999 but all major international players had already lost interest. By 2000, there was the psychopath with a zero-sum-game worldview in the Kremlin and anything short of shooting him down made him stronger.
As far as I understand [livejournal.com profile] aillarionov, he is not promoting the assumption that a Supreme Council victory would rule the autocratic degeneration scenario out. His point rather boils down to "stand for the institutions and come what can"; that would also have been "American" in the true sense.
Edited 2018-07-17 08:53 (UTC)
lxe: (Default)

[personal profile] lxe 2018-07-17 10:56 am (UTC)(link)
but there's no evidence that the support made the relationship worse.

The PoV I am outlining here is that the relationships could have been better without a Putin, and the actual Putin was (to an extent) a product of giving Yeltsin's administration a free pass. I am not considering Putin an independent parameter here.

(Actually, under the assumption of (a; any) Putin in the Kremlin, the conclusion would be trivially true because the "no Putin" precondition would be trivially false. But that's not the essence of what I meant.)