Does Russia Suffer from Culture Cringe?

[Ronnie]

Not long ago, Groovstik posted the following comment from the Editor in Chief of the  Moscow-Based Exile

These days, Russia is all about getting serious and respectable. And it's also in the grips of a national persecution mania, in which grievances and complexes about the West have exploded into a kind of mass grievance obsession, a frenzied Easter egg hunt for evidence of Western disrespect or unfairness in order to feed this grievance jones. The fact that our paper has also exerted a lot of bile in savaging the West's Russophobe industry is irrelevant to them, even annoying; all they care about is sifting for evidence of humiliating Russia.

Now let me say up front, I have a life long distaste for psycho-babble.  Every psych major I met in college seemed a poor soul searching for her or him self. 

But for some time, I've been wondering if the Russian culture is not somehow afflicted with what seems to be a culture-wide inferiority complex.  The psychologists say that this complex can produce anti-social behavior...even sociopathic.   The say when it involves a whole culture it's called Culture Cringe. 

I do believe that many of the women I met, including my sweet wife are afflicted with an inferiority complex that can manifest itself at times in very disconcerting ways.

Any amateur (or pro) psychologists out there?

[steviej]

Ever since the establishment of the first Russian empire (maybe Empire is a stretch at the beginning, but call it "Kievan Rus") Russians have been attacked from the East, West, North and South, almost without respite. They live in one of the most dangerous parts of the world at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. They have shown the most remarkable resiliance, IMO, to survive and repel invastions (Mongal was devastating: keep in mind they were under the Mongol boot longer than US has existed) and regrow. All of this in an ecological environment with a 3 month growing season. They are hardy, clever, persistent and spiritually fatalistic people capable of science, art and the humanities at the highest levels, in spite of everything. They are a rightfully proud people. Throughout their sequence of empires: Kievan Rus, the Moscovy Empire (ending with Ivan IV), the Romanov Empire, and Soviet Empire, and now, the Russian Federation, for which the future remains to be seen, they have remained Russian. They do not need the shallow jingoism of being "united by their values." Every stage of empire has been based on different values, but through it all, they have remained essentially Russian (Americans don't even have an identity anymore. IMHO. That's why we scream so loud about "values".). They have also taken sensible opportunties for expansion when presented. Very much like "Manifest Destiny" for American expansions, which I also wholy support.

The fact that Russians perceive that the "West" is against them and even conspires against them is because of the behavior of the West towards them ever since at least the establishment of the Romanov dynasty. I can't relate such an entire history here, but in summary, my personal view is that the West does indeed have an exaggerated fear and bias against the Russians. Declassified documents even from the Cold War show how preposterously exaggerated was the propaganda to Americans about the threat of Russian communism to the West. Russia actually felt way more threatened and was way more threatened by us, than we were by them.

What is their perception of the West since the fall of the Soviet government? The common people were sold a story about democracy and free enterprise that left anywhere from 30%-50% of the people in poverty. They saw the foreign capatilists working with the Oligarchs, Mafia's, IMF and foreign banks to simply rape the transitional economy of Russia. A classic, "Don't worry, we're here to help you." And at the same time as Russia set free the satellites, avoided civil war, NATO begins a deliberately aggressive expansion to the East. A blatant form of policy alliance bullying while the bear is down. In my opinion, Russians are justified in feeling put-upon by the West. At the same time, the do like individual Americans. They know enough about the corruptions of most people in power or with wealth to know that the average American is not in control and not doing these things to them. (A distinction that the average American is not able to make in reverse.)

My wife, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law love me, they love Americans, but they feel that the Western governments and media are always taking the side against Russia. I agree. When I look at this recent conflict with Georgia, (although most facts will be unknown for a long time), I do not see Russia as the "bad guy". Not the "good guy". But not the bad guy. And I believe they are doing what is sensibly in their own enlightened self interest.

As I said before, I would like to see Russia again emerge as a strong world power, and especially to US's best friend in an alliance against China. China is the true enemy of the future.

Americans are a people that give themselves a lot of credit for achieving a lot. Mostly, we had the good fortune to be left alone on our vast island, too far away from the wars of the rest of the world to interfere with our growth and expansion. We've never been invaded. Never had our cities detroyed, our women taken away, our fields burned, suffered enforced famines, nothing. The only bad time we unnecessarily did to oursevles which we call the Civil War and call Lincoln a hero for killing 500,000 American soldiers. We are successful because we've been left alone to be successful, mostly. If when the Founding Fathers were trying to start their new democracy and we had the Mongols on our Northern borders and the Prussians on our Southern borders, there would be no great America here today, most likely. Americans need to put their chest beating in perspective and truly appreciate the astonishing achievements of the Russian people given the environment they have had to survive in.

[Turboguy]

Stevie,  I won't argue with your view of Russian history but I do think your view of American history has a few flaws.

Americans are a people that give themselves a lot of credit for achieving a lot. Mostly, we had the good fortune to be left alone on our vast island, too far away from the wars of the rest of the world to interfere with our growth and expansion. We've never been invaded. Never had our cities destroyed, our women taken away, our fields burned, suffered enforced famines, nothing. The only bad time we unnecessarily did to ourselves which we call the Civil War and call Lincoln a hero for killing 500,000 American soldiers. We are successful because we've been left alone to be successful, mostly. If when the Founding Fathers were trying to start their new democracy and we had the Mongols on our Northern borders and the Prussians on our Southern borders, there would be no great America here today, most likely. Americans need to put their chest beating in perspective and truly appreciate the astonishing achievements of the Russian people given the environment they have had to survive in.

First off you say America has never been invaded, had our cities destroyed etc.   You then cite the Civil War.   You might want to go back one more war to the War of 1812 when England invaded us.  If you check you will find they burned the White House as part of their invasion.   Of course you also forgot Pearl Harbor.  I sorta think we had a little damage there too and Hawaii might be not be the mainland but it is American Soil.   Moving on to the civil war you quote a half million Americans killed.  The official casualty total was 620,000 Americans although it is speculated the real total may have been as high as 700,000.  You say Lincoln killed them.   To the best of my knowledge he never fired a gun and if you read about the civil war you might notice it started with the attack on Fort Sumter by the South.   Lincoln is considered a hero for preserving the union, for keeping the United States as one entity.   He is probably most remembered for the Emancipation Proclamation.  Personally I don't believe anyone should be able to own anyone else and since most of the world has since abolished slavery, perhaps not totally but to a major degree then I think this has to be considered a noble thing to do.   Personally I don't see any reason Lincoln should primarily be remembered as a killer of 620,000 people.   A recent poll showed most most Americans consider him our greatest president.   Someone who can only think of him as a killer has a strange way of thinking to my mind.   I could disagree with some other points of American history but that would be speculation.   For example your comment about Mongols on the north and Prussians on the south.   I could speculate that Indians on the west who savagely murdered lots of innocent settlers and Mexicans on the South (remember the Alamo?) could be considered similar but that is arguable. 

The Russian part of your post also raises a lot of questions in my mind but that too is speculative.   Personally I think your statement that you "would like to see Russia again emerge as a strong world power, and especially to US's best friend in an alliance against China. China is the true enemy of the future" is very naive.  My personal opinion is that the more of a world power Russia becomes the less of a best friend they will be.  I like Russia, Russian people and even Putin however I don't like the policies that I see where the Russian people are systematically being striped of Democracy.  The more power that is in the hands of a few the worst things will be for the people of Russia.   I don't see Russia and the US joining to combat the growing power of China.   I don't see China as the real threat in the world.  China is too dependant on the USA and the west as a market place for its cheap goods.   The economy of China would collapse if they were a real threat and they don't want that.  I will agree there is a lot to worry about there but to me the greatest threat is and will remain in the foreseeable future the middle east and Muslim countries.     

[Lit_1nce]

I don't see China as the real threat in the world.  China is too dependant on the USA and the west as a market place for its cheap goods.   The economy of China would collapse if they were a real threat and they don't want that.  I will agree there is a lot to worry about there but to me the greatest threat is and will remain in the foreseeable future the middle east and Muslim countries.     

Turboguy, very good post.. I also for the time being agree with your views on China, however as their economy improves there may eventually come a point where domestic sales can beat exports.. They have a pretty large customer base don't you think ? ... Once this point is reached, then it could become a very big threat.

As to the Muslim countries as threats, they have for the most part only been threats to themselves... The biggest problem is we keep selling them all weapons.. and we seem to keep repeating these mistakes.. Our leader keeps yelling about the big Iranian nuclear threat on the one hand, but has allied us with Pakistan in a huge arms deal, and they are a very shaky country that HAS NUKES... and where is the return on investment for this alliance ?

I think most of us baby boomers (and older) have been exposed to anti Soviet teachings at some point.. and of course in all that we were told that the other side was preaching anti West "propaganda" .. truth is it was on both sides.. so although maybe it does seem like the Russian people have a little paranoia going on, I think it is still there on both sides.. just as the propaganda on both sides continues when it suits one or the other.

[Blues Fairy]

Every stage of empire has been based on different values, but through it all, they have remained essentially Russian

One value has been pretty consistent; the belief in the Kind Tsar (anointed and backed by either Russian Orthodox church or the Communist party, whichever is applicable).  Very profound and hard to eradicate in spite of all the stories of democracy people were sold - by the way far from all actually bought those stories; the older generation never liked or understood the new post-Soviet order.  

The Americans were fortunate to have their land to themselves and grow a healthy set of values connected with private property; self-reliance, self-government, individualism, freedom of business and speech, religious tolerance - the values we unite into the term "civil society".  Russians never had a chance to develop a mature civil society because they've always been under an authoritative and oppressive power, which owned the key resources, including land, and discouraged any kind of grass-roots initiative.  Constant intervention of outside enemies is hardly an excuse.  The British and the French had it pretty rough, too, yet they did manage to develop some democratic institutions very early in history.  

[steviej]

Turbo, good post and you make some good points.

Stevie,  I won't argue with your view of Russian history but I do think your view of American history has a few flaws.
First off you say America has never been invaded, had our cities destroyed etc.   You then cite the Civil War.   You might want to go back one more war to the War of 1812 when England invaded us.  If you check you will find they burned the White House as part of their invasion.   Of course you also forgot Pearl Harbor. 

Right, although as far as devastation, the actual area invaded as a percent of US was very small. Pearl Harbor was certainly an attack, but a very specific military installation. I don't think we took any other homeland hits during WWII, did we?

Moving on to the civil war you quote a half million Americans killed.  The official casualty total was 620,000 Americans although it is speculated the real total may have been as high as 700,000.  You say Lincoln killed them.   To the best of my knowledge he never fired a gun and if you read about the civil war you might notice it started with the attack on Fort Sumter by the South.   Lincoln is considered a hero for preserving the union, for keeping the United States as one entity.   He is probably most remembered for the Emancipation Proclamation.  Personally I don't believe anyone should be able to own anyone else and since most of the world has since abolished slavery, perhaps not totally but to a major degree then I think this has to be considered a noble thing to do.   Personally I don't see any reason Lincoln should primarily be remembered as a killer of 620,000 people.   A recent poll showed most most Americans consider him our greatest president.   Someone who can only think of him as a killer has a strange way of thinking to my mind.   I could disagree with some other points of American history but that would be speculation.   For example your comment about Mongols on the north and Prussians on the south.   I could speculate that Indians on the west who savagely murdered lots of innocent settlers and Mexicans on the South (remember the Alamo?) could be considered similar but that is arguable. 

I have studied the civil war extensively. Of course the winners write the history, in general, and Lincoln is a hero. Here's what really disturbs me about our view of the civil war: to the best of my knowledge, we are the only nation that engaged in such a massive bloody and destructive war to "end slavery." Why is that? Everyone else ended slavery within their nations peacefully. If you look at it that way, it makes you realize that there are some very disturbing things about the American civil war. We take it for granted that it was a heroic and necessary struggle to end slavery, etc. I won't go into it here, but I have come to the conclusion that the war was avoidable. I consider a major war taking hundreds of thousands of American lives that was avoidable makes Lincoln a very bad president, IMO. I know very well in our country that that is a minority view. And in case you're wondering, I was born, raised and educated in the North. I'm not a Southerner.

The Russian part of your post also raises a lot of questions in my mind but that too is speculative.   Personally I think your statement that you "would like to see Russia again emerge as a strong world power, and especially to US's best friend in an alliance against China. China is the true enemy of the future" is very naive.  My personal opinion is that the more of a world power Russia becomes the less of a best friend they will be.  I like Russia, Russian people and even Putin however I don't like the policies that I see where the Russian people are systematically being striped of Democracy.  The more power that is in the hands of a few the worst things will be for the people of Russia.   I don't see Russia and the US joining to combat the growing power of China.   I don't see China as the real threat in the world.  China is too dependant on the USA and the west as a market place for its cheap goods.   The economy of China would collapse if they were a real threat and they don't want that.  I will agree there is a lot to worry about there but to me the greatest threat is and will remain in the foreseeable future the middle east and Muslim countries.     

You raise a good point about the concentration of power in Russia in the hands of a deviant few, and what that would mean. However, I would still contend that Russia's negative perception in the West exaggerates its real threat.

About the Muslims I agree except to me the Muslim threat is preventable. First, we should never let another Muslim into our country. Why we continue to do this is just beyond me. Second, Israel has no value to us as an American ally, and yet it antagonizes the entire mid-East against us. We should simply take a position of neutrality w.r.t. Israel. Israel must survive on its own, or perhaps with help from Germany and other European powers. It should not be a US responsibility.

About China, my concern about China is long term. Have we forgotten that China is the largest, most totalitarian dictatorship in the world? Have we forgotten that we have outsourced our entire manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and DB management infrastructure to them? They can shut us down in a heartbeat, and they don't have to pass a referendum to do it. I think I read somewhere they have enough US dollars in their coffers now to buy most of the farmland in US, if they want (They are accummulating about $500 Billion greenbacks per Year!!). And we are "free traders" right? Long term, I see serious risks and problems with China. In that light, I would like to see a strong alliance with Russia.

But still, your points are valid, and it is speculation. And I do have an affection for Russia and the Russian people ...  

[Misha]

Ever since the establishment of the first Russian empire (maybe Empire is a stretch at the beginning, but call it "Kievan Rus") Russians have been attacked from the East, West, North and South, almost without respite. They live in one of the most dangerous parts of the world at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

Were there any "peaceful" regions that were not being attacked? In the first centuries of the second millennium, the Normands conquered Italy and later William invaded and conquered England. There were the Crusades and wars in the Holy Land. Western Europe was hardly a peaceful utopia.

They have shown the most remarkable resiliance, IMO, to survive and repel invastions (Mongal was devastating: keep in mind they were under the Mongol boot longer than US has existed) and regrow. All of this in an ecological environment with a 3 month growing season.

It did not help that the principalities were weakened by the constant warfare between themselves. As for the 3-month growing season, this depends where you are in Russia. It is 3-months is the North and Far East, but much longer in southern Russia and Ukraine. As for the Mongol invasions, yes it was difficult, but the Mongols were interested in tribute. To facilitate their task, the princes of Moscow would take it upon themselves to collect the tribute on behalf of the Khans.

They are hardy, clever, persistent and spiritually fatalistic people capable of science, art and the humanities at the highest levels, in spite of everything. They are a rightfully proud people. Throughout their sequence of empires: Kievan Rus, the Moscovy Empire (ending with Ivan IV), the Romanov Empire, and Soviet Empire, and now, the Russian Federation, for which the future remains to be seen, they have remained Russian.

Well, let us not forget that Ivan the Dread (or Terrible) ensured the downfall of the dynasty by killing the viable heir, his own son. He also established the oprichniki to terrorize the boyars and the population. Ivan the Terrible was very adept at killing fellow Russians: the population of Novgorod was massacred when Ivan's forces took the city. It is estimated that tens of thousands were killed. It is hard to use history to explain how Russia was continually being "attacked" by outsiders, when thousands were being killed by fellow Russians.  

They do not need the shallow jingoism of being "united by their values." Every stage of empire has been based on different values, but through it all, they have remained essentially Russian

What, exactly is "essentially" Russian? Peter the Great was greatly influenced by his travels to the West, Catherine the Great was a German princess. In the 18th century, the Russian nobility taught their children French and other foreign languages. Pushkin, Russia's "greatest" poet, had the nickname of "the Frenchman" being of his love of French literature and the French language.

The fact that Russians perceive that the "West" is against them and even conspires against them is because of the behavior of the West towards them ever since at least the establishment of the Romanov dynasty.

What exactly is this behavior? What exactly did the "West" do to aggrieve Russia? Yes, there were some wars with the Swedes, but the Russians were hardly blameless: Peter the Great wanted to conquer new territories. Eventually they did conquer the Baltic Region and Finland. The Russian Empire pushed both Southwards and Eastwards. The only real attempt to conquer Russia was Napoleon's invasion. I can't see how the West conspired against Russia.

I can't relate such an entire history here, but in summary, my personal view is that the West does indeed have an exaggerated fear and bias against the Russians. Declassified documents even from the Cold War show how preposterously exaggerated was the propaganda to Americans about the threat of Russian communism to the West. Russia actually felt way more threatened and was way more threatened by us, than we were by them.

This is a bit of an oversimplification. Let us not forget that Stalin signed a pact with Hitler as to how to divide Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. Let us not forget Khrushchev who pounded his table/desk at the UN saying that the Soviet Union would bury the West... Let us not forget that the aim/hope of the Soviet Union was to see the Revolution spread across the world. They did their best to promote it wherever possible and use military force to maintain it where necessary (Hungary, Czechoslovakia). If the Soviet Union felt threatened, they certainly did their best to hide it

[steviej]

One value has been pretty consistent; the belief in the Kind Tsar (anointed and backed by either Russian Orthodox church or the Communist party, whichever is applicable).  Very profound and hard to eradicate in spite of all the stories of democracy people were sold - by the way far from all actually bought those stories; the older generation never liked or understood the new post-Soviet order.  

The Americans were fortunate to have their land to themselves and grow a healthy set of values connected with private property; self-reliance, self-government, individualism, freedom of business and speech, religious tolerance - the values we unite into the term "civil society".  Russians never had a chance to develop a mature civil society because they've always been under an authoritative and oppressive power, which owned the key resources, including land, and discouraged any kind of grass-roots initiative.  Constant intervention of outside enemies is hardly an excuse.  The British and the French had it pretty rough, too, yet they did manage to develop some democratic institutions very early in history.  

I don't think it was always the Tsar mentality. In about 1100 AD, Kiev was one the the 3 leading European cities, established one of the earliest universities, and the rest of Russia was ruled by quasi-independent Prince-doms. Novgorod was even progessively democratic for its time. (I don't mean universal sufferage, but for its time). I think the Mongol invasion is what turned Russia's history away from that of the rest of Medieval Europe. After finally expelling the horde, Russia evolved autocracy as about the only way, at that time, to pull together sufficient resources and centrality of command to resurrect itself and defend itself. Although France, Germany and England had constants wars, Russia's geographic position was more precarious. Further, Russia's short growing season meant that their overall agriculture was less productive, and therefore a more powerful centralized state evolved to concentrate the more limited resources. If the Mongols had crossed central europe and France (which they almost did, but a dynastic squabble caused them to halt and return to Mongolia voluntarily. They were never defeated at that time and could have easily continued straight on to the Atlantic.) the entire history of Europe would be significantly different, of course. And Russia emerged from the Mongol domination 250 years later way behind the amazing advances of Western Europe over that time. (Known as the "high" middle ages leading to the  renaissance )

[Ronnie]

No inferiority complex then?

[Turboguy]

Lit_1nce, Good Post.  of course I usually think any post is a good post that agrees with me.   I don't think anyone has the answers on the middle east situation but I agree fewer weapons would be a good thing.   I think news from both sides tends to be biased.   I think even locally the news is biased.  I can recall a few years ago when a gentleman's club opened up across the street from us.   Channel two cameramen stopped at our door and asked how we felt about it.  We didn't care.  It was actually much less of a problem than the business that had been there before.  People just quietly went in and out.  They moved right on to a couple of neighboring business that we on TV that night ranting and raving about how it was ruining the neighborhood.   Channel 2 was not interested in reality.  They wanted to do a story about how everyone was enraged about Larry's gentleman's club opening in our area.  They didn't want to hear anything else.  News is about selling papers or attracting audience share.   The news is presented in a way that will accomplish that.  People want to believe their country is good.  

Blues, nice post too.   I think Russia has really not had a taste of the freedoms that people in America, England and France have and have never learned to value it.  With the news under the thumb of the Kremlin they will be told what the leaders want them to hear.   People tend to believe anything in print.

Stevie,  Some of your facts may not have been exactly correct but the reality of what you were trying to say is right on.   We, our parents, and our grandparents never had to go through some of the terrors that citizens of Russia, France, England, Poland ................. went through.

I am not sure taking a postion of neutrality is the answer.   It didn't work well with Hitler.  I will agree that China has a leadership that is a real cause for concern.    I don't see the threat of them cutting off our supplies of dvd players a big threat.   There are enough other countries like Taiwan, India, Japan and Korea that would pick up the slack with little suffering of the American economy and tastes for toys.   That tactic doesn't work.   Carter destroyed the American economy in one day by decalring a boycot on American grain sales to Russia.  Within a very short time Argentina through enough land into grain production that Russia never suffered, only the USA did.  Americans are more resolute than you think.  Give them a cause and they can do about anything.  If you take a close look at the rationing in WWII and the things Americans gave up without complaining.  Milk, Gasoline and even shoes were rationed.  I still have both my parents and my ration books from WWII by the way.  If we have to do without while we rebuild America's manufacturing base I think the American people are up to the challenge.  

As far as Lincoln and the civil war, personally I believe the states voted to be part of the union that is the United States.   I also believe if the majority of the population of a state or group of states wants to be independant of the USA they should have a right to do that as long as it is done democratically.  I don't believe a war is justified to force them to stay in the union.  Still I am glad the south is still part of the USA and I wasn't around in those days (even though I am older than dirt) to voice my opinion not that anyone would listen anyway.  Personally I think the same thing applies to the areas that want to break away from Georgia and for that matter if Quebec ever wants to leave Canada I think it is their right.  I would disagree if western Canada attacked Quebec to keep them as part of Canada.  Since you have studied the Civil war I think you would agree that slavery was not the only issue.   Personally I think the Military Industrial complex existed even in those days.  

As far as what the threats will be a few decades from now I think the world turns in ways we can never predict.  Perhaps you are right and China will be the real threat.   Perhaps they will be a pussycat in the world and the Muslim world will unite under a strong but evil leader and be a bigger threat then ever thought possible.  One person can change the world.

If I started a thread on RWD and said I thought sometime Germany would try to take over the world and be a big threat I would probably be laughed off the board.  Most would consider Germany is too small to worry about.  Yet with a few changes in strategy we could all be speaking German right now.   What some would consider crazy now can be reality a half century from now or a half century ago.   Maybe you are right about China.  Certainly they have the population, the financial strength and the evil nature to be a threat that needs to be taken seriously.

One of my first trips (perhaps the first) a long long time ago took me to Vitibisk, Belarus.  The gal I was meeting and I did not hit it off all that well but the dad and I stayed friends for nearly a decade after my visit.  I remember
Boris telling me about the wars and Vitibisk.  He said the germans would attack and drive through the city.  The Russians would counter attack and drive back through the city and on and on.  80 percent of the population of the city were killed.   There was a statue in the center of town that was riddled with bullet holes from the war.  We went on a picnic in the forest and it was pretty cool.  You could hear cuckoo birds in the trees.   There were a lot of holes in the ground.  Boris told me some were foxholes left over from WWII and others were where artillery shells hit.  Looking around in that forest almost made my thoughts of what the war must have been like.  

I think another interesting point to consider is that although 620,000 Americans were killed in the Civil war think for a minute how many people in Russia and Ukraine as well as the other members of the FSU were killed by the leaders of Russia.  Most of those as well were not killed as soldiers in a war, they were peaceful peasants, scientists, leaders educators and in many cases the best and brightest of Russia.  I would think the numbers would not be too far behind those killed in WWII.

[groovlstk]

Ronnie,

If you're going to use that Exile quote as fodder, you should read a followup by the same writer in regards to Ossetia. Keep in mind his newspaper was shut down by Putin's thugs, so he's no fan:

http://exiledonline.com/south-ossetia-the-war-we-dont-know/

[SANDRO43]

I don't think we took any other homeland hits during WWII, did we?

Actually, you did, you were balloon-bombed by the Japs: http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=2356.msg46519#msg46519 .

... and Holllywood was shelled by a Jap submarine in 1941 .

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,

If you're going to use that Exile quote as fodder, you should read a followup by the same writer in regards to Ossetia. Keep in mind his newspaper was shut down by Putin's thugs, so he's no fan:

http://exiledonline.com/south-ossetia-the-war-we-dont-know/

What fodder?  I'm asking a question.  Is it a sense of inferiority that is at the root of Russias near isolation from the world?

[Makkin]

Hi,

  Inferiority can be tagged on a society in many ways and the people of that society can either believe it or reject it.

  Hitler talked of Russians being inferior and/or third class citizens of the world etc... Does this mean they believed it?

  Australians according to one of our members here had problems for years with this same issue until the Olympics of 2000.

   What makes propoganda work and how it works is the device that is also used on the masses to formulate and desire a plan that has one eye looking north as another looks south while the mind wanders inside it's heart without explanation and thus causes the complexity of mental control.

Makkin

[Ranetka]

Ever since the establishment of the first Russian empire (maybe Empire is a stretch at the beginning, but call it "Kievan Rus") Russians have been attacked from the East, West, North and South, almost without respite. They live in one of the most dangerous parts of the world at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. They have shown the most remarkable resiliance, IMO, to survive and repel invastions (Mongal was devastating: keep in mind they were under the Mongol boot longer than US has existed) and regrow. All of this in an ecological environment with a 3 month growing season. They are hardy, clever, persistent and spiritually fatalistic people capable of science, art and the humanities at the highest levels, in spite of everything. They are a rightfully proud people. Throughout their sequence of empires: Kievan Rus, the Moscovy Empire (ending with Ivan IV), the Romanov Empire, and Soviet Empire, and now, the Russian Federation, for which the future remains to be seen, they have remained Russian. They do not need the shallow jingoism of being "united by their values." Every stage of empire has been based on different values, but through it all, they have remained essentially Russian (Americans don't even have an identity anymore. IMHO. That's why we scream so loud about "values".). They have also taken sensible opportunties for expansion when presented. Very much like "Manifest Destiny" for American expansions, which I also wholy support.

The fact that Russians perceive that the "West" is against them and even conspires against them is because of the behavior of the West towards them ever since at least the establishment of the Romanov dynasty. I can't relate such an entire history here, but in summary, my personal view is that the West does indeed have an exaggerated fear and bias against the Russians. Declassified documents even from the Cold War show how preposterously exaggerated was the propaganda to Americans about the threat of Russian communism to the West. Russia actually felt way more threatened and was way more threatened by us, than we were by them.

What is their perception of the West since the fall of the Soviet government? The common people were sold a story about democracy and free enterprise that left anywhere from 30%-50% of the people in poverty. They saw the foreign capatilists working with the Oligarchs, Mafia's, IMF and foreign banks to simply rape the transitional economy of Russia. A classic, "Don't worry, we're here to help you." And at the same time as Russia set free the satellites, avoided civil war, NATO begins a deliberately aggressive expansion to the East. A blatant form of policy alliance bullying while the bear is down. In my opinion, Russians are justified in feeling put-upon by the West. At the same time, the do like individual Americans. They know enough about the corruptions of most people in power or with wealth to know that the average American is not in control and not doing these things to them. (A distinction that the average American is not able to make in reverse.)

My wife, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law love me, they love Americans, but they feel that the Western governments and media are always taking the side against Russia. I agree. When I look at this recent conflict with Georgia, (although most facts will be unknown for a long time), I do not see Russia as the "bad guy". Not the "good guy". But not the bad guy. And I believe they are doing what is sensibly in their own enlightened self interest.

As I said before, I would like to see Russia again emerge as a strong world power, and especially to US's best friend in an alliance against China. China is the true enemy of the future.

Americans are a people that give themselves a lot of credit for achieving a lot. Mostly, we had the good fortune to be left alone on our vast island, too far away from the wars of the rest of the world to interfere with our growth and expansion. We've never been invaded. Never had our cities detroyed, our women taken away, our fields burned, suffered enforced famines, nothing. The only bad time we unnecessarily did to oursevles which we call the Civil War and call Lincoln a hero for killing 500,000 American soldiers. We are successful because we've been left alone to be successful, mostly. If when the Founding Fathers were trying to start their new democracy and we had the Mongols on our Northern borders and the Prussians on our Southern borders, there would be no great America here today, most likely. Americans need to put their chest beating in perspective and truly appreciate the astonishing achievements of the Russian people given the environment they have had to survive in.

...Love you...Have a brother? :-)

[2tallbill]

Hi,

  Inferiority can be tagged on a society in many ways and the people of that society can either believe it or reject it.

  Hitler talked of Russians being inferior and/or third class citizens of the world etc... Does this mean they believed it?

  Australians according to one of our members here had problems for years with this same issue until the Olympics of 2000.

   What makes propoganda work and how it works is the device that is also used on the masses to formulate and desire a plan that has one eye looking north as another looks south while the mind wanders inside it's heart without explanation and thus causes the complexity of mental control.

Makkin

Makkin, I don't have alzheimer's but I may have part-timers. I didn't
get your last paragraph. Maybe it was too metaphysical, who knows.

I think Hitler made alliances of convenience. I doubt that he really thought
that Japan were "Yellow Arians" or that Russians were fellow brother Socialists.

Just my two kopecks,
Bill

[Faux Pas]

I have studied the civil war extensively. Of course the winners write the history, in general, and Lincoln is a hero. Here's what really disturbs me about our view of the civil war: to the best of my knowledge, we are the only nation that engaged in such a massive bloody and destructive war to "end slavery." Why is that? Everyone else ended slavery within their nations peacefully. If you look at it that way, it makes you realize that there are some very disturbing things about the American civil war. We take it for granted that it was a heroic and necessary struggle to end slavery, etc. I won't go into it here, but I have come to the conclusion that the war was avoidable. I consider a major war taking hundreds of thousands of American lives that was avoidable makes Lincoln a very bad president, IMO. I know very well in our country that that is a minority view. And in case you're wondering, I was born, raised and educated in the North. I'm not a Southerner.

Ah it's evident you aren't a southerner.  I am a son of the South, born, bred, raised and if God smiles on me long enough, will die in the South. The "War of Northern Nggression" wasn't about slavery. Slavery was a secondary issue after the start of the war. The issue that was the powder keg of the war was States Rights. Lincoln's objective was not to free the slaves but to keep the Union intact.

[diverboy70]

What is going on today is a lot of political retorics from the Russian side. Russia lost about all of its political/Military superpowers with the collapse of the USSR. Today Mevedev/ Putin again wants to put Russia on the map of superpowers. I quess we just have to learn to live with a much more aggressive foreign policy/ Display of military power from Russia!

Russia is today arming their Baltic Sea subs with nuclear warheads as a direct response to the US/Polish agreement on the defence shield. And also has said that Poland will be a direct targetfor those in a conflict. Yes a lot of it is huffing and puffing from a disturbed bear. But as I allready said in another thread, the power of balance is changing once again!

[diverboy70]

We had a visit from the Finnish state secratary of foreign affairs this week and she also said something interesting. She said that Nato should back down and let the OSCE take charge of negetations between Russia and Georgia. She is a very known formar schollar in the foreign policies of Russia. She said that Russian may negoatiate with the OSCE but will never back off from Nato. And I think she is right!

[Misha]

I don't see it. In spite of all the rhetoric and the oil money, even the Russian Information Agency notes that Russia spends 25 times less on the military than the United States. It is also facing a demographic crunch: with the reduction of time served in the army for conscripts from 2 years to 1 year, they will have a hard time maintaining their army. Yes, they are trying to move towards a professional army, but this will take years to succeed. Russia is even recruiting soldiers from nearby countries (read Central Asia) giving them citizenship in exchange for military service. This of course will accelerate a trend whereby the majority of Russian soldiers will soon be Muslim (which would make for an interesting dynamic should there ever be another war in Chechnya).

Overall, then, the only way Russia could aspire to returning to its Soviet "superpower" status would be for it to reimpose a command economy whereby most of the economy is geared towards producing the goods the army and navy needs to compete with the United States globally. They would have to expand conscription and eliminate exceptions made to university students and others who can escape the draft. The renewed spending on the military, of course, would leave little for spending on consumer goods and other such luxuries.

[diverboy70]

Misha

I am just saying what all military experts and politcal analyst are saying. Russia is again striving for military superpower. We have seen it before, neglecting their citizens for the "good of the country".

Im just saying that something is happening in Russia, and Georgia was just their fisrt show off power.

[Misha]

Misha

I am just saying what all military experts and politcal analyst are saying. Russia is again striving for military superpower. We have seen it before, neglecting their citizens for the "good of the country".

Im just saying that something is happening in Russia, and Georgia was just the fisrt shoe off power.

Well, I can also strive for an Olympic gold medal, but the odds are against me as well 

Russia is already starting to lose because of the war: billions left Russia immediately after the war broke out and the Russian Central bank had to spend more billions buying rubles which was falling because of the rush to sell rubles. The war will certainly put a damper on foreign investments in Russia, as well as Russia's bullying of those companies that actually put money in Russia (BP, Shell, etc.).

If anything, the war was not a message to the West, but a message to the powers that be in Russia. It sent out a clear signal to the competing factions that Putin was still in power. It will, IMHO, cost Russia in the long run, but it was very effective in the short term to ensure Putin's tight grip on power.

[diverboy70]

Well Misha, that is your opinion! I personally would not be so sure that russia will not be one of the superpowers once again. They may not have the most modern subs today, but the warheads they are arming them with are state of the art! And Nato and the US should take notice of this. And maybe get used to not be alone as the only superpower today!

[Misha]

They may not have the most modern subs today, but the warheads they are arming them with are state of the art!

Well, that is what the Russia Army will say, but they also have a habit of making announcements that some new weapon or plane or other technology is being developed and will be released soon. The next year, they then make the same announcement.....

[diverboy70]

That quatation is not from Russia but from the Finnish state secratary of foreign affairs