I've watched the clip bordering and whilst Sachs makes some very valid points ( many of which also appear in the 2 books I mentioned), I still personally disagree with some of his key views.Originally Posted by bordering
Early on, for example, he says that the end of the Cold War, with Gorbachev keen for peace and closer ties to the West, should have been an opportunity to dismantle NATO which would have been the right thing to do as well as now safe to do. Bush, and subsequent presidents, however chose rather to expand NATO ever closer to Russia's borders. IMHO, I think this naive thinking at best-an "educated wish" as Deadpool might have put it.
Aside from the very high probability that the ties within NATO, alongside those of the EU, have helped prevent far more conflict within Europe than create them, Russia itself after the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the old Soviet Union in 1991 was very far from stable. The new Russian Federation was in dire economic difficulties and those seeking to transform it into a more democratic collaborative with a free market economy faced strong opposition from very powerful individuals with their own vested interests. Yeltsin's idea of encouraging privatization in order to try and build a bulwark against a possible return to communism played right into their hands. The voucher system was very quickly seized upon by those few powerful former communists who bought for themselves controlling shares in major industries and businesses. The Russian Oligarchs were born. These former Communists may have been the new captains of Capitalism but this was no major ideological problem for the majority of them who just cared about their own wealth and power. In such a climate, it was almost inevitable that some one like Putin would rise to his position.
I guess most people take it as read that self interest and the opportunity to make more money by influential parties are what drives much of US foreign policy alongside security and a few humanitarian concerns. So, a lot of corruption and greed. But isn't the same true, to a more or lesser extent, of every nation? Is Russia any different?
My point is that, given the situation in Russia at the time with no strong leader to deal with, would it not have been foolish to dismantle NATO? Would it have made much difference to Russia or prevented former KGB officer (and later director of the FSPutin coming to power? Putin has been either prime minister or president since 1999. I do understand the arguments around provocation regarding his invasion of Ukraine, but if NATO had been dismantled in the early 1990s, as Sachs suggests, does anyone genuinely believe that Putin would not have set about such invasions of either Ukraine or other former Soviet countries a lot earlier?
Reply With Quote
