Ukraine Always Get What You Want

What, exactly, are the Russians’ interests?

 

Not gonna lie. As a kid, until Darth Vader came along, Brezhnev was pretty much the boogeyman!

 

Aside from being the world’s largest organized crime state and supporting white suprematism worldwide?

 

--- Preservation of current political regime and minimizing chances of Western interference in Russia’s domestic affairs.
--- A relentless quest for respect. For better or worse, Russia considers itself as an eternal great power, and traditional understanding of great power status involves dominance in one’s neighborhood/region. That basically means respect to Russia is measured by the extent of Western acceptance of Moscow’s interests in the post-Soviet space. We demand the same, so no big surprise there.
--- To gain an equal status vis-à-vis other major international players. Moscow considers that its role in European affairs has been marginalized by Western countries, whereas throughout the history --- again, for better or worse --- Moscow has played a crucial role in European security.
--- The ability to conduct business unimpeded --- such as transporting gas via Nordstream 2 without the U.S. sanctioning everybody who helps them achieve this goal.

I'd be delighted to . . . since my wife was one of the 90 percent who voted for the fucking thing. Said to me six days ago:

"We were lied to. We were told the only thing that would change was that the money made in Ukraine would stay in Ukraine and not go to Moscow. They said nothing else would change. They said Russian language would still be the language of the land and that Ukrainian would remain fringe dialect. There was no nationalism, no animosity toward Russia --- until NATO agents started pouring in a couple of years later and started stirring a bunch of nationalist ideas among the people. A West-supported color revolution followed a year later, and then everything started going to shit."

 

Maybe Russia could suck it up and put in the hard work of not being a drunken, paranoid kleptocracy that preys on perceived weakness in neighbors.

 

That which can't go on forever won't, no matter who's running the show.

 

I believe it could have, though, through proper tweaking, perhaps more similar to China's model. Hell, the state survived far worse than stagnation throughout its often-brutal history.

Somebody here (maybe LancyHoward) posted an article once that explained Russia's problem clearly --- that while they are great at invention, they are terrible at innovation. And innovation is where money and influence are made.

 

It's no "narrative" that promises made in the run-up to an election differ from reality after the election. Happens all the time. My then-20-year-old wife just happened to be a little more optimistic and a hell of a lot less jaded at that time. She basically thought, "some of the bad things will get better, and all of the good things will continue." Instead, for the next decade everything got worse. In 2000 she inherited her uncle's apartment in St. Petersburg, acquired Russian citizenship and never regretted it.

 

Because no one ever got to see the results of the March 1991 referendum. Sure, it could have been a bunch of hogwash. But continuation of the state meant continuation of stability (guaranteed jobs, government pensions) that vanished when the USSR dissolved. Kiev senior citizen expecting his pension check from Moscow suddenly found his mailbox empty. Expectant mothers found themselves without the three years' maternity leave they had grown accustomed to. And so on.

The U.S. has a remarkably stable history. We take it for granted. "Stability" never ranks high among things Americans are seeking. Because it's always there. For Soviet citizens, stability was everything. It's why they viewed elections as "don't let things get worse" instead of our typical "now things are going to be so much better!" optimism.