Posts by Lisa Jackson7

Thomas Walker84 said:Honestly, having some variety in the world isn't a bad thing; it prevents everything from becoming one giant empire where everyone is exactly the same. As long as we keep competing, trading, and communicating—without resorting to war—it works.

It really looks like the next major era will be defined by two heavyweights: the West (the USA, Europe, and their allies) versus the East (now led by China and their partners). Russia should have stayed on our side; it would have been much better for both us and the Russians. This whole Russian mess seems like a psychotic reaction to realizing they aren't one of the top two bosses anymore, and they've proven they can't even manage the building.

Though I suspect the Russians won't be back with us anytime soon 🙂; it's going to take them a long time to shake off the Putinists and all that nonsense to reach a level that aligns with democratic principles.

There are different ways to define "world variety"... some people think it includes "a little bit of warfare that won't cause too much damage" just to keep the military-industrial complexes of different blocs fueled up.

I'm not a fan of that kind of variety, and whether Russia comes back or if Ukraine even returns to the fold doesn't depend solely on them.
Look at the example: until now, Russian oligarchs were allowed to "sit on two chairs"—they played nice with Putin so they could do business in Russia, and then used offshore accounts and Western investments to make up for the lack of property rights, which the West was totally cool with.

The whole point of sanctions should be to force guys like Abramovich or Deripaska to finally pick a side and push back against Putin's inner circle, which just isn't easy anymore. This would have been so much simpler 20-30 years ago, before some young, ambitious KGB agent could even dream of getting into power.

As for the European Union, they really need to start moving toward building their own security system and military independence, working alongside Americans instead of being completely dependent on them.

rowdytiger13 said:+ Plus, Europe is already pivoting to new suppliers. Germany is openly hunting for alternatives. The President is traveling through Africa, and they're welcoming him with open arms.
That’s a long-term shift. Even if the war ends through some sort of deal, the process has already started and it isn't stopping. Russia won't be returning to the European market on that scale ever again. They've been pushed out—or rather, they pushed themselves out. They know it too, which is why they're turning toward Asia. Things will never go back to how they were, despite the words the President spoke at the start of the conflict.

Facts... the second wave of globalization is dead and buried. We're heading straight back to bloc politics—the USA leading one side, China leading the other... and Russia will probably just tag along with China.

Gerald Torres84 said:That is precisely what the Russians are missing... they possess vast natural resources and the potential to be at least three times more powerful than Germany in terms of economic scale. If they were to actually bolster their economy, they could quite elegantly draw neighboring nations into their sphere of influence.

But instead, look at what they have actually done... they allowed a bunch of puppets, looters, and oligarchs to seize power—people who simply line their own pockets while performing these desperate geopolitical acrobatics involving wars.

Look, when you're talking about different socio-economic systems—boosting an economy isn't some simple "flip a switch" situation—and honestly, most countries can't just pull that off entirely on their own.
Even China couldn't pull that off—and it wasn't like some lone wolf from the old East Germany just single-handedly rebuilt the economy, the standard of living... or, more importantly, the entire fabric of society.

"Quote:"

What did they actually do? They handed the keys to some absolute crooks—total oligarchs who just suck up wealth for themselves—and now they’re out here playing these insane games with wars.

Every single country in transition across Central and Eastern America dealt with this kind of corruption—it was everywhere, especially right at the jump. And don't even get me started on the absolute mess with all those wars—I mean, we all lived through that, right?
Basically, everything is shifting toward Southern and Eastern Europe—you can see it everywhere. These oligarchs and their little handlers are starting to pull way more weight these days.

analogbear5 said:So the West is to blame because they didn't just swoop into Russia back in the 90s and
...colonize the place to fit their own image—reforming the military and turning every single inefficient, money-losing state entity into a streamlined, competent business
...clearing out all the redundant KGB types from every factory and collective farm overnight while retraining them all
...teaching the brand-new entrepreneurs that they actually had competition now and that they had to deal with real risks for once
...and if they kept churning out junk, they’d actually go bankrupt
...teaching bureaucrats—who previously treated accounting like an art form for hiding losses and faking growth—that they now had to cut costs to boost productivity without firing the massive surplus of workers who were only there to keep unemployment numbers low
...handling privatization perfectly by selling off state assets to the most honest and capable people rather than the slickest crooks

And all this while living in a democracy where the legislative and executive branches flip-flop, making deep, unpopular economic reforms nearly impossible. Once the transition got painful—which was inevitable—the Communist Party held sway over the Duma and, by extension, the Federal Reserve. They kept pushing socialist policies and sabotaging the core parts of "shock therapy" by insisting on fixing everything by printing more and more money—even while dealing with the hyperinflation of 1992! (Note: during that hyperinflationary mess, Russia was basically liquidating its weapons and ammo to anyone with a pulse).

How do you pivot an economy and a political system that's hardwired for Cold War realities and slash defense spending that was hitting 15% of the budget?
...where do those workers go?
...how do you take that specialized experience and move it into the civilian sector?
...how do you replace the lost post-Soviet markets that those massive, clunky industrial giants relied on?
...and how do you do any of that without causing mass unemployment and impoverishing the older, unskilled, and retired population?
...how do you build a functional, sustainable healthcare and social safety net overnight? Up until then, housing, health, and pensions were all tied to the companies themselves.
...who picks up those bills without going broke or leaving retirees completely destitute? How?

And how do you take a military force that’s busy growing potatoes just to feed a bloated army and maintain crumbling infrastructure—a force that's politically and militarily incompatible with the West—and somehow fold them into NATO?

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Here is what lies beneath the surface...

Russia and the IMF, Anders Aslund, January 18, 2000, Testimony

...on the topic of "How did it all start and why?"

Grace Phillips25 said:Russia tried the whole democracy thing. Doesn't look like it stuck. China hasn't even bothered to try yet. But those are traditionalist societies—especially over in Asia—where that cult of personality around a leader still carries a ton of weight.

Having spent a good chunk of my life in Asia, including China, I’ve noticed that people there don't really have this burning desire or even a basic need for the kind of democracy we're used to in the West. Though, funny enough, once they move to the West, they start acting all "when in Rome and all that."

If you ask me, this one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to spreading democracy just doesn't work for a lot of cultures, especially out East.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—just so you know, I'm basically a clone of Intermezzo (lost my password for that old handle and I'm too lazy to bother resetting it).

It failed because nobody actually helped the "good guys" (not that I could have helped 😁) in any real or efficient way.
Western interests were mostly focused on building up capitalism there—even if it was just cronyism—so democracy ended up being nothing more than some extra little accessory offered through various NGOs. If it sticks, fine; if not, whatever...

There are plenty of reasons for that, including the uncomfortable possibility that democracy isn't even "in" anymore within the neoliberal West itself—no matter how much they preach it abroad (it's gotten pretty stagnant right here at home, too).

Anyway, you probably know the situation in China better than I do, but following the logic—they want the Western standard—as they're forced to expand their internal market, a growing middle class will eventually start questioning the "leading role of the Party," much like what happened in Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.

P.S. Lisa Jackson7, we go way back—I'm basically an Intermezzo clone (lost my password for that old handle and can't be bothered to reset it).

🙂

I was wondering where you vanished to... anyway, glad you're back.

"Quote:"

Rachel Richardson said:The US has its own calculations to make—the West is certainly no saint—but nobody forced Hitler or Putin to invade neighboring nations...

Exactly right.
It’s also worth noting that if Ukraine had been brought into NATO around 2000, we might not be facing this war today.
Or consider what happened when they didn't hand over their nuclear weapons.

Realistically, no.

That is precisely why the sanctions can be so severe.
Are they intended to trigger internal change?

Look, I’m not interested in playing judge or jury here—I just want the damn problem solved. Even Germany wasn't exactly left to its own devices after World War II, since, you know, "who actually forced Hitler to invade his neighbors?"
Look, Germans weren't exactly everyone's favorite back then—just like they aren't today—but that's really the heart of the issue. What kind of world order are we actually looking for? Seriously.

Some people are out here praying for a Cold War reboot—they actually want to go back to playing games with Putin and China like we're still in that "golden age" of globalization... honestly? I’m just over here hoping for some actual prosperity and a world that isn't run by autocrats.
Sounds like a damn fairy tale—but long-term? Not a chance. Look, if we don't build a world like that—seriously—Western political systems won't even stand a chance at surviving.... there isn't even a wall high enough to keep them out.

"Quote:"

Spot on. Everything said here is 100% facts. Some people actually claim that if the US had just let Ukraine into NATO back around 2000, we wouldn't be dealing with this whole mess today. Or what—she shouldn't have handed over her nukes?

Even if we avoided the War entirely—which wouldn't be enough, by the way—Ukraine still needs a path toward integrating into Europe through some kind of "light EU" setup. And honestly? Russia should probably follow suit at its own pace.

"Quote"

That's exactly why the sanctions have to be this brutal—no question about it. Are they actually trying to trigger change from within? — seriously, what a joke.

It’s hard to stay the same—really tough—when things start getting unstable and we're looking at a potential coup or whatever... you gotta throw in a "carrot" too... just be careful and make sure there are clear terms in place.

Grace Phillips25 said:So, looking at the big picture here—is Russia even remotely ready for democracy? Like, do they actually *want* it? There are plenty of nations out there that aren't prepared for it, nor do they particularly care for it. China is pretty much the same story (and believe me, I know enough about that firsthand).

There’s no way to know for sure ahead of time—if you ask me, the real question is whether there's even any genuine international interest in promoting democracy through peaceful means, rather than the mess we saw in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Obviously, any response to those kinds of pushes has to come from a critical mass of motivated groups within the target country itself.

The fact is, when it came to building up democratic institutions and a solid civic political culture in the defeated Axis powers after World War II, having the winning anti-fascist coalition holding all the power levers definitely helped things along.

Is that an absolute prerequisite for success? Who knows—I hope it isn't and that there are other ways to make it work.
And is having a competing superpower around—like the USSR back then—a necessity? Again, I have no clue.

It’s not my place to claim that setting up even somewhat democratic or liberal regimes in Russia or China is easy—honestly, looking at their history, it might not even be possible anytime soon... the whole timeline proves it.

All I know is that it's worth a shot.
The payoff would be finally moving away from the constant threat of war.

slyfox43 said:Lisa Jackson7, no offense intended, but I think you might be leaning a bit too heavily into confirmation bias.

Try taking a page out of my book and staying open to fresh perspectives and dissenting views. On that note, I just learned today how the villainous West essentially handpicked Hitler and Putin to take the reins. 😉

The whole idea of "choosing" someone in politics is messy—it could mean anything from a subtle nudge to, say, giving Yeltsin a phone call and telling him to nominate Putin as his successor.

Besides, calling Yeltsin a democrat is a stretch at best. Not after that constitutional crisis back in '93, and definitely not after those "fair" elections in '96 where he probably swiped the win right from the Communist candidate, Zyuganov.
He had the oligarchs backing him, and even his buddy Bill Clinton gave him a hand. 😉

Does everything I just said mean I'm rooting for Zyuganov?
Not even close. I’m just suggesting—since you claim to be so "open-minded"—that you go read some of Anders Aslund's stuff on Russia in the 90s. It's hard to call him a "Putin lover."

Rachel Richardson said:They simply weren't interested in hosting an economic miracle here.

I'm in agreement with that.

It’s true—the parallels between Putin and Hitler are multifaceted.

So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

Rachel Richardson said:I disagree.
The Russians (and everyone else in the former Soviet bloc) were likely expecting something akin to the Marshall Plan—a lifeline for a nation that had been struggling since WWII.
Take Japan, for example: they thought they had massive investment coming their way, until Americans reminded them that troops could be withdrawn from the country, so they backed off.
Russia actually wanted to join NATO, but they were essentially laughed out of the room 😬

On the other hand, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Which structures were even in power, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There is always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes, there simply isn't a viable option to choose from.

The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Russia is a massive threat to all its neighbors and to civilized society—there needs to be a response. They need to learn their lesson. Either they become a normal country or they face total isolation. Who knows how long that’ll take? I’m honestly worried we’re looking at decades of isolation before anyone actually manages to steer them back toward the right path. It’s such a shame because, if they had cooperated, everyone could have benefited so much more.

Honestly, you might as well just swap out "Russia" for "USSR" and pretend this whole post was written back in the 80s.
As far as we know—hopefully—it hasn't been that many years since Gorbachev took power... whether he was forced into it or not, he did something incredible: he dismantled his own military-political-economic powerhouse without even suffering a military defeat.
Looking back from today's perspective, the West's response was an absolute disaster.
If they had handled it better, we probably wouldn't still be stuck spinning these Cold War narratives today.

George Robinson43 said:Krugman hit the nail on the head regarding Germany.
About 12 or 13 years ago, they were the leaders driving austerity across Europe, but today, they hesitate to tighten their own belts while everyone else in the EU is forced to do so without being asked.

Facts. And honestly, it's not just Germany—it's all the major Western powers, including the USA.

Michael Ortiz68 said:That was always a German scheme. The whole plan was controversial from day one, long before the war in Ukraine was even on anyone's radar. And whenever anyone dared to criticize it, they’d just claim it was a conspiracy by the US to push more expensive LNG—though, to be fair, there was some truth to that, too.

On the other hand, you look at all these long-term European strategies—low-carbon initiatives, the 2021 climate laws, the Green Deal, Fit for 55... it’s all centered on pivoting away from fossil fuels. There has always been a healthy amount of skepticism regarding how feasible this transition actually is, but now, more than ever, it feels like an absolute necessity.

Yeah, but we really need to get serious about backing nuclear power... alongside renewables, smarter energy efficiency, and actually using hydrogen for transport.

Anthony Hill5 said:Their own children and grandchildren are perfectly taken care of and will never want for anything, yet they couldn't care less about anyone else's offspring, which is evident when you look at the ages of the Russian soldiers they've sent straight into the meat grinder.

So, when are they actually gonna be allowed to take care of their own families (and by that, I mean outside of Russia)?

slyfox43 said:It was the CIA, which, as we can see, maintained the actual levers of power the entire time. That is true continuity of power. One has to wonder why Gaidar didn't clear that mess up himself if he truly had the agency to do so. (He didn't.)

Then again, if there was a collection of "accessories to the crime" in the West, there certainly was; and I think you know my long-term stance on them. What is unfolding right now presents a genuine opportunity to purge and reform Western institutions, and I won't mourn if that window closes without being used (much like how you won't mourn the missed opportunity you believe existed for integrating and reforming Russia.)

The CIA, sure, but they’ve got plenty of help from the people who were supposed to be tracking where all that money was flowing outside of Russia—money the CIA decided was "useful."

Russian-style kleptocracy is infiltrating America

Yeah, there were plenty of "accessories to the crime" in the West, and I think you know exactly where I stand on them. What we're seeing right now is a massive opportunity to finally purge and reform Western institutions, and I'm not going to sit around crying if we miss it (just like you won't cry over that missed chance you think existed to integrate and reform Russia.)

I know, you brought that up before, and it ties right into what I'm getting at... it's not about dwelling on a past we can't change, it's about the future opening up once Putin is gone.
Look, I'm not trying to distract from the tragedy in Ukraine, but I am warning you: the whole point of these sanctions needs to be stopping Putin AND making sure he's politically wiped out.
Honestly, you might be the only one who actually gets what I'm saying here...

rowdytiger13 said:Maybe Russians are ready, but if they are, they'll make their own move.
I'm pretty much against outside interference now, even though I used to advocate for it. It's simple: not every nation follows the same path or shares the same history. That doesn't make them better or worse... it just means things aren't the same everywhere. China will likely develop a system tailored to its own needs (they haven't been truly communist for a long time anyway).
The Western model of democracy doesn't fit everyone. Maybe it works for Russians—only time will tell—but it doesn't work for everyone, and if it turns out it's not for them, what then?

When I talk about interference, I'm talking about the kind they actually asked for—back in '91 and '92 when Yeltsin and Gaidar were begging for financial and (actually useful) advisory help.
The Swedish economist Anders Aslund laid out how the USA basically cashed in on a "peace dividend"—slashing defense spending and wiping out their budget deficit by a whopping trillion dollars over about a decade.
Meanwhile, they found it impossible to cough up even $30 billion to support those Russian economic reforms.

We haven't hit that breaking point yet, obviously, and who knows when or how it'll happen.

China has already built its own custom setup, and since the rest of the world is just waiting to see what happens next, we'll just have to watch.

"Quote:"

Kyle Nelson2 said:And look, it isn't even really about the people—it's more about those deep structures, like the CIA, that run the whole show and pull all the strings. There's just no way for anyone from the outside to fix that.

Look, you can track where that stolen money actually goes—the funding sources, the energy trade flows—and just cut them off. No matter how much it hurts.

rowdytiger13 said:I'm personally skeptical that things will escalate to direct intervention, but if they do, it's the wrong move.
Not every nation actually wants democracy, nor are they necessarily ready for it.
Let them be, just don't let them exert their influence.

rowdytiger13, Russia isn't Afghanistan—they're actually stronger and way more dangerous.
We can't just pull the "let them be" card when it comes to them.

How can you say Russians don't want democracy under any circumstances? Maybe they aren't ready right now, but back in the 90s, if I was your average Russian, I probably would've concluded that democracy just stripped away my basic security and tanked my quality of life from "bad" to "non-existent."

Maybe things didn't have to go down that way... I mean, would Europe have even cared about human rights or democratic ideals later on without the Marshall Plan (and you gotta look at that plan as more than just cash)?
I'm not buying it for a second.

slyfox43 said:If—and that is a massive if—they ever manage to pivot their entire identity from "us versus the world" to "we are just one part of the world," accepting that they aren't inherently special or entitled to unique geopolitical favors, then they won't have to beg for an invitation back to the table.

Back in the '90s, we didn't see that happening. There was a movement, sure, but it was really just a thin veneer wrapped around the same old imperialistic Russia we've always known.

Even if that packaging was thin, it could have made a huge difference... but they weren't given the chance. Now everyone just nods along like, "Oh, totalitarianism is just in their blood," and acts like there's nothing to be done. To me, that just feels like pure hypocrisy and turning a blind eye.

Shouldn't we be looking into where all that Russian capital from the 90s actually went? The CIA helped pull that money out, and honestly, they were pretty damn good at investing it.
The Russian reformist PM Yegor Gaidar warned everyone about this right from the jump, but he was totally ignored.
So, who's really to blame here?

ruggeddriver70 said:Look, we're dealing with a crowd that views the West, the USA, and the EU as the ultimate villains, so they'll always spin whatever narrative fits that mold.

If the West lets Eastern European countries develop on their own, they complain about lack of interest. But if the West sets any conditions at all, then suddenly it's "interference in internal affairs" and so on.

Look, I’m giving you a straight answer here—Anders Aslund is a Swedish economist and a former senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and his whole specialty is the economic transition from a planned system to a market economy.

Setting conditions is perfectly logical, provided those conditions actually make sense and lead to changes that serve the shared goals of both the donor and the recipient.

George Robinson43 said:It seems people still haven't grasped the fundamentals, yet they continue to dream of democracy in Russia.

The fact remains: the West did not help Russia. 🙏 🙏

The same logic applies to you. No, the West didn't help Russia—or rather, it didn't help the reformers back when it actually mattered... later on, it basically helped Putin, but that's a whole different mess.

As for the dreaming part? Honestly, I'd rather dream about democracy in Russia than live through a new Cold War that never should have been inevitable ... but hey, some people definitely know how to profit from that too.

rowdytiger13 said:Wait.
Zero interference.

Wait for it? Yeah, I'm not buying that.