MaxQ
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCOct 2009
- Posts:1,114
-
Likes:860
-
Liked:102 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Yet Kennan was largely the architect of our postwar containment policy that did indeed win the Cold War. and this is WIDELY recognized.
alt=""
alt=""
Implying that the architect of the containment of the USSR and the winning of the Cold War knows nothing of Russian motivation is either naïveté bordering on foolishness or outright Sophistry.
You ought to read the aforementioned book.
Hub, for damn sure ought to read the book.
And Merry Christmas everyone.
Agree I should read it. But there are 100s on that list.Originally Posted by Excargodog
Don’t we allYet Kennan was largely the architect of our postwar containment policy that did indeed win the Cold War. and this is WIDELY recognized.
alt=""
alt=""
Implying that the architect of the containment of the USSR and the winning of the Cold War knows nothing of Russian motivation is either naïveté bordering on foolishness or outright Sophistry.
You ought to read the aforementioned book.
Hub, for damn sure ought to read the book.
And Merry Christmas everyone.
Can't promise will get around to it, but it doesisound as a worthwhile read
Almost assuredly Kennan was the prominent architect of America's Cold war strategy.
I have a few theories as to why, but we do not produce statesmen/diplomats, or leaders in general,
with the learned scholarship or moral fiber such as men like Kennan, Marshall or Roosevelt.
(The list, many resting in anonymous graves,from that era would be long)
MaxQ
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCOct 2009
- Posts:1,114
-
Likes:860
-
Liked:102 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Yet Kennan was largely the architect of our postwar containment policy that did indeed win the Cold War. and this is WIDELY recognized.
alt=""
alt=""
Implying that the architect of the containment of the USSR and the winning of the Cold War knows nothing of Russian motivation is either naïveté bordering on foolishness or outright Sophistry.
You ought to read the aforementioned book.
Hub, for damn sure ought to read the book.
And Merry Christmas everyone.
I should clarify.Originally Posted by Excargodog
Don’t we allYet Kennan was largely the architect of our postwar containment policy that did indeed win the Cold War. and this is WIDELY recognized.
alt=""
alt=""
Implying that the architect of the containment of the USSR and the winning of the Cold War knows nothing of Russian motivation is either naïveté bordering on foolishness or outright Sophistry.
You ought to read the aforementioned book.
Hub, for damn sure ought to read the book.
And Merry Christmas everyone.
Kennan knew a great deal of Russian motivation for his time.
He could not know what motivates Putin, as it is a profoundly different time and Russia is profoundly different both geographically and politically from the USSR.
Quote:
Kennan knew a great deal of Russian motivation for his time.
He could not know what motivates Putin, as it is a profoundly different time and Russia is profoundly different both geographically and politically from the USSR.
As year 4 begins, I’m less & less convinced that’s true. Something is off internally. Ice cold souls. Kennan had it right. Containment remains the best way forward.Originally Posted by MaxQ
I should clarify.Kennan knew a great deal of Russian motivation for his time.
He could not know what motivates Putin, as it is a profoundly different time and Russia is profoundly different both geographically and politically from the USSR.
Quote:
Kennan knew a great deal of Russian motivation for his time.
He could not know what motivates Putin, as it is a profoundly different time and Russia is profoundly different both geographically and politically from the USSR.
Nonsense. As far back as 28 years ago he PRECISELY predicted that the eastward expansion of NATO would lead to something akin to the war with Ukraine:Originally Posted by MaxQ
I should clarify.Kennan knew a great deal of Russian motivation for his time.
He could not know what motivates Putin, as it is a profoundly different time and Russia is profoundly different both geographically and politically from the USSR.
https://comw.org/pda/george-kennan-on-nato-expansion/
it is an error to believe this is all because of something unique to the personality of Putin. The Russian bench has as many people more hardline than Putin as it does less hardline. Expecting Putin’s demise to change the cultural issues that put Putin in charge is unrealistic.
MaxQ
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCOct 2009
- Posts:1,114
-
Likes:860
-
Liked:102 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Containment, and with it the maintenance of the post ww2 order is EXACTLY what, from a USA point of view, aid to Ukraine is about.Originally Posted by METO Guido
As year 4 begins, I’m less & less convinced that’s true. Something is off internally. Ice cold souls. Kennan had it right. Containment remains the best way forward.
The past 14 months have buried the previous world order of sanctity of state borders, but hope for preventing Russia from a revisionist subjugation of her neighbors still exists.
Russia began as an expansionistic empire (Tsarist), bent on subjugation and tribute.
Lenin envisioned spreading the Revolution at least to the North Sea.
Stalin turned the Revolution inward. Concentrating on "Socialism in one State".
Hitler gave him vis Molotov- Ribbentrop eastern half of Poland.
Defeating Germany in ww2 lead to Russian empire expansion into central Europe. Stalin redraw national borders at the end of the war.
Kennan correctly understood that Stalin did not share Lenin's vision. Hence containment possible. Due to this he didn6 think NATO, and long term USA presence necessary. He didn't seem to consider how important NATO was in making a future stable Western Europe. Without this stability the free market trust required for the Marshall plan to work could not develop.
Putin has correctly identified the unity of the EU and NATO, backed by mutual values of the Atlantic Charter as the principle obstacles for his reestablishing the Russian Empire of at least Catharine, and possibly of Stalin's Yalta agreements.
He is once again an expansionistic Tsarist.
Kennan correctly assessed that Stalin was not.
Kennan understood that Stalin viewed NATO as a threat.
I strongly suspect that he would have understood that Putin DOES NOT view NATO as a threat, but rather as an IMPEDIMENT.
Threat versus impediment is the key difference on which these threads keep going round and round upon. You are intelligent enough, and open minded enough, to grasp the difference between the USSR that Kennnan knew and the diminished and resentful Russia of post 1991.
Quote:
The past 14 months have buried the previous world order of sanctity of state borders, but hope for preventing Russia from a revisionist subjugation of her neighbors still exists.
Russia began as an expansionistic empire (Tsarist), bent on subjugation and tribute.
Lenin envisioned spreading the Revolution at least to the North Sea.
Stalin turned the Revolution inward. Concentrating on "Socialism in one State".
Hitler gave him vis Molotov- Ribbentrop eastern half of Poland.
Defeating Germany in ww2 lead to Russian empire expansion into central Europe. Stalin redraw national borders at the end of the war.
Kennan correctly understood that Stalin did not share Lenin's vision. Hence containment possible. Due to this he didn6 think NATO, and long term USA presence necessary. He didn't seem to consider how important NATO was in making a future stable Western Europe. Without this stability the free market trust required for the Marshall plan to work could not develop.
Putin has correctly identified the unity of the EU and NATO, backed by mutual values of the Atlantic Charter as the principle obstacles for his reestablishing the Russian Empire of at least Catharine, and possibly of Stalin's Yalta agreements.
He is once again an expansionistic Tsarist.
Kennan correctly assessed that Stalin was not.
Kennan understood that Stalin viewed NATO as a threat.
I strongly suspect that he would have understood that Putin DOES NOT view NATO as a threat, but rather as an IMPEDIMENT.
Threat versus impediment is the key difference on which these threads keep going round and round upon. You are intelligent enough, and open minded enough, to grasp the difference between the USSR that Kennnan knew and the diminished and resentful Russia of post 1991.
Solid commentary.Originally Posted by MaxQ
Containment, and with it the maintenance of the post ww2 order is EXACTLY what, from a USA point of view, aid to Ukraine is about.The past 14 months have buried the previous world order of sanctity of state borders, but hope for preventing Russia from a revisionist subjugation of her neighbors still exists.
Russia began as an expansionistic empire (Tsarist), bent on subjugation and tribute.
Lenin envisioned spreading the Revolution at least to the North Sea.
Stalin turned the Revolution inward. Concentrating on "Socialism in one State".
Hitler gave him vis Molotov- Ribbentrop eastern half of Poland.
Defeating Germany in ww2 lead to Russian empire expansion into central Europe. Stalin redraw national borders at the end of the war.
Kennan correctly understood that Stalin did not share Lenin's vision. Hence containment possible. Due to this he didn6 think NATO, and long term USA presence necessary. He didn't seem to consider how important NATO was in making a future stable Western Europe. Without this stability the free market trust required for the Marshall plan to work could not develop.
Putin has correctly identified the unity of the EU and NATO, backed by mutual values of the Atlantic Charter as the principle obstacles for his reestablishing the Russian Empire of at least Catharine, and possibly of Stalin's Yalta agreements.
He is once again an expansionistic Tsarist.
Kennan correctly assessed that Stalin was not.
Kennan understood that Stalin viewed NATO as a threat.
I strongly suspect that he would have understood that Putin DOES NOT view NATO as a threat, but rather as an IMPEDIMENT.
Threat versus impediment is the key difference on which these threads keep going round and round upon. You are intelligent enough, and open minded enough, to grasp the difference between the USSR that Kennnan knew and the diminished and resentful Russia of post 1991.
If you have the urge, re-read GFK’s epic ‘long telegram’ wired from Moscow. Putin is undeniably more deeply entrenched than Stalin. Still, there is something very wrong with a culture continually rolling out hard line Kremlin tyrants prepared to push their massive hydrogen stockpile to the brink. You and others won’t accept it but as the Putin regime’s time ends, another Red menace will take its place. Assuming of course we’re again successful containing the one at present. Like Crimea, Ukraine’s occupation is fait accompli.
MaxQ
Line Holder
close
- Joined APCOct 2009
- Posts:1,114
-
Likes:860
-
Liked:102 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
If you have the urge, re-read GFK’s epic ‘long telegram’ wired from Moscow. Putin is undeniably more deeply entrenched than Stalin. Still, there is something very wrong with a culture continually rolling out hard line Kremlin tyrants prepared to push their massive hydrogen stockpile to the brink. You and others won’t accept it but as the Putin regime’s time ends, another Red menace will take its place. Assuming of course we’re again successful containing the one at present. Like Crimea, Ukraine’s occupation is fait accompli.
While I disagree with your last sentence, the rest of your post is accurate.Originally Posted by METO Guido
Solid commentary.If you have the urge, re-read GFK’s epic ‘long telegram’ wired from Moscow. Putin is undeniably more deeply entrenched than Stalin. Still, there is something very wrong with a culture continually rolling out hard line Kremlin tyrants prepared to push their massive hydrogen stockpile to the brink. You and others won’t accept it but as the Putin regime’s time ends, another Red menace will take its place. Assuming of course we’re again successful containing the one at present. Like Crimea, Ukraine’s occupation is fait accompli.
There is a difference between paranoia and aggressive empire expansion.
Stalin was paranoid.
Putin is an expansionist/Eurasianist.
Almost assuredly Putin will in one manner or another be replaced by a violent authoritarian.
Bit of trivia.
Wish the animal was a bear, but did you know that if you shave the fur off a tiger, the stripes are still there on the skin?
I don't know if there can ever be a change to the bear, but the Germanic Henry the Fowlers rooster has been replaced by a Capon.
Unfortunately it took an unimaginable catastrophe for that change to come about.
Quote:
There is a difference between paranoia and aggressive empire expansion.
Stalin was paranoid.
Putin is an expansionist/Eurasianist.
Almost assuredly Putin will in one manner or another be replaced by a violent authoritarian.
Bit of trivia.
Wish the animal was a bear, but did you know that if you shave the fur off a tiger, the stripes are still there on the skin?
I don't know if there can ever be a change to the bear, but the Germanic Henry the Fowlers rooster has been replaced by a Capon.
Unfortunately it took an unimaginable catastrophe for that change to come about.
I get that. but…Originally Posted by MaxQ
While I disagree with your last sentence, the rest of your post is accurate.There is a difference between paranoia and aggressive empire expansion.
Stalin was paranoid.
Putin is an expansionist/Eurasianist.
Almost assuredly Putin will in one manner or another be replaced by a violent authoritarian.
Bit of trivia.
Wish the animal was a bear, but did you know that if you shave the fur off a tiger, the stripes are still there on the skin?
I don't know if there can ever be a change to the bear, but the Germanic Henry the Fowlers rooster has been replaced by a Capon.
Unfortunately it took an unimaginable catastrophe for that change to come about.
I’m also 97% certain liberation of occupied oblasts via superior conventional force will result in superpower defense. Russian archetype is a Bolshevik ballet whose final act has the cast bowing from afterlife. Annexed territories are likely to stay that way a while longer.
Quote:
There is a difference between paranoia and aggressive empire expansion.
Stalin was paranoid.
Putin is an expansionist/Eurasianist.
Almost assuredly Putin will in one manner or another be replaced by a violent authoritarian.
Bit of trivia.
Wish the animal was a bear, but did you know that if you shave the fur off a tiger, the stripes are still there on the skin?
I don't know if there can ever be a change to the bear, but the Germanic Henry the Fowlers rooster has been replaced by a Capon.
Unfortunately it took an unimaginable catastrophe for that change to come about.
Originally Posted by MaxQ
While I disagree with your last sentence, the rest of your post is accurate.There is a difference between paranoia and aggressive empire expansion.
Stalin was paranoid.
Putin is an expansionist/Eurasianist.
Almost assuredly Putin will in one manner or another be replaced by a violent authoritarian.
Bit of trivia.
Wish the animal was a bear, but did you know that if you shave the fur off a tiger, the stripes are still there on the skin?
I don't know if there can ever be a change to the bear, but the Germanic Henry the Fowlers rooster has been replaced by a Capon.
Unfortunately it took an unimaginable catastrophe for that change to come about.
But the Ukraine War was neither unimaginable nor unpredictable. It was in fact predicted - but the warhawks didn’t listen.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/t...and-what-next/
an excerpt:
Quote:
On March 12, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stood with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the auditorium of the Truman presidential library in Independence, Missouri, and formally welcomed these three countries into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Czech-born Albright, herself a refugee from the Europe of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, said quite simply on this day: “Hallelujah.”
Not everyone in the United States felt the same way.The dean of America’s Russia experts, George F. Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Kennan, the architect of America’s post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner.
On March 12, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stood with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the auditorium of the Truman presidential library in Independence, Missouri, and formally welcomed these three countries into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Czech-born Albright, herself a refugee from the Europe of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, said quite simply on this day: “Hallelujah.”
Not everyone in the United States felt the same way.The dean of America’s Russia experts, George F. Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Kennan, the architect of America’s post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner.
