Posted on 04/28/2021 3:53:20 AM PDT by tlozo
On April 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed Kremlin officials to draw up a list of “unfriendly countries.” Although the identity of these “unfriendly countries” has yet to be officially confirmed, Russian media reports citing leaked information suggest the list will be dominated by Russia’s neighbors.
According to a report published by Izvestia newspaper, the nations set to feature on the list of “unfriendly countries” are the United States, Poland, Czechia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Ukraine, and Australia. The most striking thing about this group is the fact that five of the ten featured countries share land borders with Russia. Meanwhile, a sixth nation, Czechia, was also until relatively recently part of Moscow’s extended European empire.
Why are so many countries with lengthy historic ties to Russia now regarded as hostile by the Kremlin? With Russian troops currently occupying large swathes of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, it does not take a genius to work out why members of the post-Soviet neighborhood might be eager to distance themselves from Moscow.
However, this dismal trend cannot be explained away by reference to post-Soviet military interventions alone. In reality, the often deep distrust that exists between Russia and the country’s neighbors is in many cases of ancient vintage and reflects the imperial instincts that have traditionally shaped and defined Russia’s national idea.
It would be possible to fill an entire library with quotes lamenting Russia’s apparently insatiable imperial appetite. Such sentiments have been expressed for centuries in a dizzying array of languages including Ukrainian, Georgian, Lithuanian, Chechen, Polish, and Finnish. Perhaps the most succinct commentary of all came from celebrated American diplomat George Kennan, who observed in 1944, “The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other.”
The latest nation to, in Kennan’s words, reconcile itself to the role of Russian enemy, is Ukraine. More than any other “unfriendly country,” the disastrous deterioration in bilateral ties with Ukraine should give Moscow cause to question the wisdom of its adversarial approach to neighborhood relations.
In this particular instance, Vladimir Putin must personally accept much of the blame. When Putin first came to power at the turn of the millennium, post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine were still so inextricably intertwined that anyone suggesting a future conflict between the two would have been dismissed as a fraud or a madman. Indeed, the boundaries were so comprehensively blurred that Ukraine’s second president, Leonid Kuchma, actually felt compelled to publish a book entitled, “Ukraine is not Russia.”
Putin soon succeeded in changing the entire dynamic of the relationship. His first big blunder was the decision to visit Kyiv on the eve of Ukraine’s 2004 presidential vote and directly interfere in the final stages of the election campaign. This characteristically condescending intervention enraged millions of previously apolitical Ukrainians and played a key role in sparking the Orange Revolution, which erupted weeks later.
Seemingly undeterred by this humiliating foreign policy failure, Putin continued to treat Ukraine as only partially sovereign. He defended Russia’s right to veto Ukraine’s geopolitical choices, while questioning Ukrainian statehood and repeatedly opining that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people.” Eventually, with Ukraine poised to defy him and sign a European Union Association Agreement, Putin invaded.
Seven years later, the undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine rumbles on with no end in sight. An entire generation of young Ukrainians with no memory of the shared Soviet past now knows Russia primarily as an enemy aggressor. Support for Ukraine’s pro-Russian political parties has plummeted to record lows, while a clear majority of Ukrainians backs the previously unpopular idea of NATO membership. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Putin’s Ukraine strategy has been a self-inflicted defeat of historic proportions.
While the collapse in relations with Ukraine has been particularly traumatic, it is in no way exceptional. From the Baltic to the Caucasus, many of the newly independent nations that emerged from the Soviet wreckage have turned away from the imperialism and authoritarianism of modern Russia in recent decades and sought the sanctuary of closer ties with the Western world. Meanwhile, Moscow has found that it lacks the soft power tools to compete with the West, hence the reliance on force as a tactic of last resort against Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine.
In an ideal world, the prominence of so many neighboring states on the Kremlin’s list of “unfriendly countries” would spark a lively debate within Russian society over the obvious need to improve relations. This is unlikely to happen. Instead, the Kremlin media will probably continue to accuse the country’s neighbors of irrational “Russophobia,” while promoting convoluted conspiracy theories of vast Western plots aimed at undermining Russia’s greatness.
We have seen this movie before. For much of the past two decades, Moscow has moaned about NATO enlargement into Central Europe and the Baltic region, brandishing it as evidence of Western plans to encircle and dominate Russia. This ignores the fact that the countries in question pursued NATO membership themselves, and were motivated almost exclusively by the perceived threat of future Russian aggression. Moscow may not like to admit it, but no single country has been a more effective NATO recruiting sergeant than Russia itself.
There is little reason to expect a change in Russia’s rocky relationship with the country’s neighbors any time soon. Instead, the nations along Europe’s eastern flank will remain on the front lines of the escalating confrontation between Russia and the Western world. They are deserving of considerably more international solidarity and support than they currently receive.
Many European countries which, by accident of geography, have less direct experience of the Kremlin, often struggle to appreciate the gravity of the concerns shared by Russia’s immediate neighbors. Speaking on April 24, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas dismissed calls for a tougher stance towards the Kremlin as “confrontational clamor,” and declared that Germany wants “a good neighborly relationship with Russia.” Diplomatic statements of this nature may sound reasonable from the relative safety of Berlin, but they ignore the reality of the situation to the east, where Russia has yet to demonstrate any interest in good neighborly relations. Until that changes, Europe’s eastern frontier will remain a focal point of international tensions.
...but it's NOTHING compared to the woke generation's assault on America!
Russia has a serious problem. It has no geographic barriers to invasion and they are justifiably concerned about sitting on an open plain surrounded by countries who have regularly invaded them. The driving issue is that Russia is in a demographic collapse. In the land of free abortions and everything else being too expensive to allow easy survival, people stopped having children. Russia must act to secure boarders defensible by a significantly smaller army as there are fewer and fewer eighteen-year-old’s to fight invaders. Another issue is that Russia simply can’t afford food, as their economy is wrecked. All of their neighbors can make money exporting food stocks to the West, but can’t make the same money exporting to Russia. Therefore, Russia has to secure those stocks for itself while it still can muster an army to do so. If they don’t, then Russia will slowly starve even as there are fewer and fewer mouths to feed. For Russia, this is the perfect storm. They must either strike now or lose the ability to do so as the army ages-out of existance.
“The driving issue is that Russia is in a demographic collapse.”
What data is it based on?
Putin is not my enemy. The US government is my enemy.
That has been common knowledge since the fall of communism but here is just one of the many articles on it...
https://warsawinstitute.org/russian-population-declines-rapidly-kremlin-faces-demographic-crisis/
Yes, the collapse is quite remarkable. Look at Chukotka, the vast area of Russia across from Alaska. In 1990 it has 160,000 people. It now only has 50,000.
Regions like this will not be Russian in 50 years.
I generally agree with your analysis, but though Russian insecurities may be motivating their aggressive behaviors, it doesn’t justify them. Russia’s problems are self inflicted. The Soviet Union did not collapse because of a lack of democracy. It collapsed because of central economic planning. This is a lesson Putin and his cronies evidently did not learn. More economic freedom is allowed for consumer goods, but heavy industry is still largely under political control. What difference does it make if a politically privileged oligarch calls himself “owner” or “director”. Either way the economic inefficiencies are the same.
.
Poland to Russia, "Bitch, please!"
——It has no geographic barriers to invasion——
Ahhhh.....That is my point so often challenged here.
Stalin asserted his power to take over eastern Europe and closed the Iron Curtain in recognition of the fact you stated. Another invasion of Mother Russia would be slowed and then stopped in say Poland
Putin is a great salesman. To sell the only products he has for export that are worth a damn he rattles a sabre and shows his stuff. He sells arms cheap.
Alcoholic men and women worked to the bone didn’t have time nor energy for families.
Being Putin and saving the very life of Mother Russia is Putin’s lot in life. It’s tough being Putin
“Another issue is that Russia simply can’t afford food...”
They can’t afford food but somehow manage to afford building thousands of expensive nuclear/space weapons.
Sort of like our “poor” people in the USA who supposedly go hungry at night but at the same time can afford expensive sneakers and mobile phones.
For some reason I am unable to copy and paste links on my phone. Google Russian demographic decline. Along with the the plethora of articles there is occasional, “hey, it’s there but the significance is overstated” article. But even those present terrible sounding data. Also, go to youtube and type Peter Zeihan and Russia. He’s a former intel analyst.
In all honesty the decline from 148,5 million in 1992 to 146,2 million in 2021 doesn’t look too dramatic.
Where do you get all of this? In 2021 the Russian manufactured export is set to overcome mineral export.
Realistically, think TREND
How much of the number you site is arms and war stuff?
Hi, I’m from the federal gub mint and I’m here to help?
Crappola!!!
Puttie Pooh has never done me bad where as the U.S. Federal gub mint? Hah.
As of 2020 manufactured goods are just slightly below that of mineral export, ff that 20,8% is rolled steel, 17,7% are weapons and machinery, 17,3% is food, 16% are chemicals.
17,7% include weapons but I think industrial machinery and automobiles are more by volume.
As for trend I don’t get you. Look at half of Europe and Japan, some lost 40% of population since the end of Cold War.
Remove immigrants from US and it would look worse than Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.