Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 22, 2021
U.S., EU Profess Support For Belarus Then Launch A War Against Its People

In there attempt regime change the country the U.S. and the European Union have launched an economic war against the people of Belarus.

First they doubted the results of elections in Belarus which the longtime socialist President Alexander Lukashenko had won against an politically unexperienced English teacher who was backed by a 'western' aligned group with a strong neoliberal program.

Belarus is still a mostly socialist industrialized country with many production assets owned by the state and relatively good social services. The people of Belarus have seen their neighbor countries Russia and the Ukraine go through extreme economic problems and poverty after the Soviet Union broke down. Neoliberalism had ruined those countries. It is thus quite plausible that a majority does not want to experience that in their own country and that Lukashenko has indeed won the votes of that majority.

The U.S. and EU claimed election fraud and supported demonstrations and riots against the results. This was an obvious color revolution attempt directed from the outside by 'western' supported forces.

The demonstrations soon died down. The color revolution attempt had failed. A few sanctions against some Belorussian politicians and functionaries were issued by the U.S. and the EU with claims that they are supporting the people of Belarus. But the effort soon ran out of steam and went no further.

Then a mysterious bomb threat against a plane flying from Greece to Lithuania led to the pilot deciding to land the plane in Minsk. Two passengers on board had outstanding warrants against them and were arrested after passing through passport control. A U.S. paid agitator for the color revolution immediately claimed that plane had been 'hijacked' to arrest the two people.

However the evidence provided so far shows that this was a typical bomb threat as they happen every once a while all over the world and that the pilot's decision to land in Minsk was absolutely normal. The authorities in Belarus reacted to the incident exactly as they are supposed to do.

But the whole western media and its politicians promoted the 'hijacked' propaganda version.

Moon of Alabama has discussed the evidence and laid out the timeline, narrative control and consequences of the incident.

The fake story propagandized by the media reignited the regime change efforts and was used to rush out new sanctions against Belarus. These are no longer directed at only a few persons but aim at the core of the Belorussian economy and thereby at all its people.

As the New York Times headlines:

Belarus Faces Expanded E.U. and U.S. Sanctions, Targeting Economy

European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Luxembourg, also voted on Monday to hit important parts of the Belarus economy — banking, oil and tobacco and, notably, the potash industry — representing an effort to broaden the punishment by penalizing organizations rather than just individuals responsible for repression. Those sectoral sanctions are expected to be confirmed by European heads of state and government who meet later this week.

We didn’t use economic sanctions in the beginning because we know they affect everyone, because they affect the economy,” Mr. Borrell said. But he also said that Brussels was prepared for a fifth round of sanctions if necessary.

Asked Monday morning about what these sanctions are expected to accomplish, Mr. Borrell, the bloc’s foreign policy chief, said the new sanctions would increase the pressure for change.

“Sanctions are a way of putting pressure on the government of Belarus,” he said. “And these are going to hurt the economy of Belarus, heavily. What do you expect when you punish something? To change their behavior.”

Borrell admits that the new sanctions against the economy of Belarus will hurt all its people.

His 'theory of change' is that the 'sanctions increase the pressure for change'.  But there is no evidence that the theory works.

Economic sanctions that hurt all people of a country tend to strengthen the government. Pushed into poverty the people become more reliant on government help. I am not aware of any example where sanctions which pushed people into poverty have then let to the people overthrowing the government they depend on.

Neither will the sanctions change Lukashenko's behavior one bit. They will only confirm his opinion about the 'west'.

Even while the U.S. and EU profess support for the people of Belarus they are punishing them by plunging them into poverty.

As Stephen Gowans noted on Twitter:

With friends like these, enemies are redundant.


Previous Moon of Alabama post on the Ryanair incident in Belarus:

They will hurt all people in Belarus. Those people who the U.S. and EU claim to help.

Comments

“Read Orwell who, yes, was a socialist.”
That’s a nice joke. Good one, I give you that.

Posted by: Hangar | Jun 23 2021 6:06 utc | 101

Wow, vk
Your @76 was incredibly well written.
Thank you.
There is still some sparkling commentary here
(Though I don’t always see eye to eye, it’s worth the read)

Posted by: Cadence Calls | Jun 23 2021 6:36 utc | 102

Grieved
Several times in interviews Putin has said that from the start, when considering taking on the job of president of the Russian Federation, that he was unsure if he would physically survive. One time saying a drowned man cannot be hanged. He is very much a family man, he listens to and respects the opinions of other people even if he does not think those opinions are correct. He is a mediator, a man who believes in evolution rather than revolution. Very much behind the current push for good education, the upraising of teachers in the society along with their responsibility of teaching the future generations. He also has spoken, in early interviews, his fear for his family when considering the position. Putin and his wife divorced around the Time he led Russia into the first major push back against US encroachment. I think that was around the time of the US attempted takeover of Ukraine in which the US and Europe were left holding the dregs while Russia emerged from the dust holding the pearls.
It could have simply been because Putin wasn’t working a nine to five job and come home each afternoon to watch footy and play with the kids but I tend to think that divorce occurred due to Putin’s concern for the safety of his family. The entire Family of Russia’s pre revolution ruler or leader were put to death…

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 6:44 utc | 103

@John Cleary Italy is a prliamentary republic with a Prime minister, but since 2012 we had just a couple of elected ones. Currently we have one (Mario Draghi) which is not elected.

Posted by: mauro | Jun 23 2021 6:48 utc | 104

Don’t forget that the IMF offered Belarus almost one BILLION euros if only Lukashenko would follow the panic script on Covid-19.
He told them to fuck off, and a month later, SURPRISE! The election was declared “rigged” despite zero evidence.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 23 2021 6:48 utc | 105

Peter, I didnt say I support democracy, just that such is the more important ideological divide between the two countries. Iron law of oligarchy: There is always an oligarchy; so, a good oligarchy (aristocracy) is wanted. Separately, “freedom arises from a balance power,” quote from James Burnham’s book “Machiavellians.” This means it’s unwanted to have any elite dominate excessively. Power needs to be balanced by other powers to hinder abuse. Or, like people say, “Who will guard Plato’s Guardians?”
A case can be made in defence of both China and the US, for what it’s worth. China’s rejection of “democracy” is probably required for any to resist the US empire. Iran, Syria, and Russia seem to be doing OK even with voting, but others can’t manage it. I like Aristotle’s notion that any “good” government is good, regardless its form. He gave 3 types, each with a good and a bad form.
China has done some wonderful things. No honest person can deny this. But I’m critical of both governments. I hope only that the US will become noninterventionist and focus domestically. What Israel, China, Belarus etc does, it doesnt concern me. How could I possibly know what is best for China? The US needs to come home.

Posted by: Weaver | Jun 23 2021 6:50 utc | 106

@25 Piotr Berman
I recomment this article. It´s from before anybody started talking about economic sanctions by the EU.

Posted by: m | Jun 23 2021 7:05 utc | 107

Weaver, China does not reject democracy. It has a system of governance that is much suited to the culture of the people. This word democracy. A sacred word amongst the faggot woke who have destroyed what can or could be good. Constantly spouting the word democracy in the way it is now used is no different to jihadis shouting religious slogans. The word democracy has become a religions belief along with the political concept that has made the word democracy a dirty word. a word that accompanies US colour revolutions that are anything but democratic. Many fools are taken in by the religious like concept of the word democracy and the way you use it here puts you amongst the fools. Democracy is about majority votes. Fools are taken in by the woke bullshit that democracy includes unicorns farting glitter and all sorts of other stuff. Many of the commenters here are from five-eyes nations. We do not have the mixed cultures and ethnic groups common throughout the middle east, Europe Russian federation ect were borders have changed over the centuries, various ethnic groups have migrated or moved to other countries ect. Like VK, many have the belief that one size, one type of governance fits all.
People that use the word democracy as you do have no idea what gag orders and the trump card of national interest mean. gag orders and national interest are the terms used in Australia. The other five eyes nations have similar even if different names are given to them and I think this will be the same in the so called democratic Europe.
Fools like you probably never look into subjects that result in raids made to look like burglaries but the all that is taken is the computers involved in the research.
Your concept of the word democracy is indeed a dirty word.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 7:24 utc | 108

Re: Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 22 2021 18:40 utc | 8

Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy, an open preview is available at the link that covers the Intro and most of the first chapter.

An interesting topic and I shall have a look at this book.
My initial question is though – where does the book begin and what does it categorise as it’s “Birth”?
I would suggest it’s Birth is correctly pinpointed in the result 1920s in the aftermath of World War I with the Dawes Plan.
The Dawes Plan was signed in August 1924 (not long after the death of Lenin) and essentially resulted in the main belligerents in World War I alll agreeing to be in debt to WALL STREET (ie – the USA).
Once the US had the likes of Germany, France, the UK & Italy hooked on Wall Street debt the last 97 years make perfect sense do they not.
The Dawes Plan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Plan
I’m not sure what the book pinpoints as the “Birth” of the US Global Supremacy – but I would put it squarely in August 1924.

Posted by: Julian | Jun 23 2021 7:35 utc | 109

Posted by: m | Jun 23 2021 7:05 utc | 106
Trickle down fan or what, Ukraine got subsidized by Russian energy as much or more that Belarus, and pretends to be a NATO base but still subsidized by Russian energy, they claim their army will suffer without financing from gas transit fees, the army that is killing its own citizens, where is the Ukrainian economic miracle?
Your arguments are so stale that generally the best thing to do is to ignore you, but it gets tiring to insist on the same old dogmas, state is bad and inefficient, private is manna from heaven, ask Bush father, the one that unlike his son had some brain cells , that is called voodoo economics.

Posted by: Paco | Jun 23 2021 7:58 utc | 110

So the Biden/Putin meeting was a nothing burger after all?
Just as expected I guess.

Posted by: Smith | Jun 23 2021 9:11 utc | 111

Rutherford82 | Jun 22 2021 21:44 utc | 43

There are a lot of real parallels there between how the US relates to countries that don’t do what it wants to how gangs relate to people in their neighborhood that don’t do what the gangs want.

I have come to the conclusion that the easiest way to understand and predict ZUKUSA policy is to regard the USG as a “protection” gang. One of Trump’s great merits was that he made this much more abundantly clear to the world in general, than had his predecessors. Ron Unz’s series Titled “American Pravda”, particularly the essay called “The Power of Organized Crime”, really clarified the picture for me.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 23 2021 9:43 utc | 112

I expect an influx of Bella Russians into the EU. More immigrants, asylum seekers. Anyhow those that can see what’s coming and have means and mobility. This will likely be a slow grind. Russia will try to relieve some of the pain, but it will also turn those who have no means against the EU for turning the screws.

Posted by: Spirasol | Jun 23 2021 10:29 utc | 113

“I am not aware of any example where sanctions which pushed people into poverty have then let to the people overthrowing the government they depend on.”
This sort of happened in Bangladesh in 1972. After the revolution there, the U.S. halted food shipments. This created a famine there, prompting the military to stage a coup. Not a popular uprising, but still regime change.

Posted by: Edward | Jun 23 2021 11:11 utc | 114

Interesting discussion here on why Yeltsin resigned allowing Putin to take over. I think many of the comments are too kind with respect to Yeltsin’s motives.
A story I heard is that Yeltsin was forced out and in exchange for resigning quietly (as opposed to being forcibly removed) he was promised that he and his daughter would be spared prosecution for corruption. I think this is something the late Stephen Cohen believed (I heard him mention this in one of his appearances on the John Batchelor show but have never seen anything in writing. Cohen was also extremely vague about any details).
Another story I heard (which came from Bill Clinton) is shortly before Yeltsin’s death Boris confided to Bill that he made a terrible error in turning over power to Putin. Do not have links on this story either.
In any case, I have more or less accepted that Yeltsin was deposed in a soft coup. I can see why Stephen Cohen would never come out and provided proof (if he had it) since such a story would be used to delegitimize putin’s legacy.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 23 2021 3:33 utc | 86

Agreed that too many commenters are being too kind to Yeltsin. He was an extreme drunkard stupified from morning until night. Also a depressive, and emotionally unstable. Even years before he came to power it was obvious he was a corrupt traitor with a completely empty head.
The story about Yeltsin being forced to resign quietly in exchange for immunity is so plausible, it intuitively “must” be true.
The Clinton story on the other hand is in my opinion certainly a fabrication. Cui bono? Clinton wanted to vilify Putin, and the story props up US propaganda, but from the Yeltsin perspective I would see it otherwise. I think there can be little doubt that the reason for Yeltsin’s uncontrollable drunkenness was linked to his guilt over his massive treason. Appointing Putin – even if forced on him – would certainly help mitigate that guilt to some degree, therefore I cannot accept that he would have regretted Putin’s appointment. Again, Putin respected the non-prosecution for corruption, so what is there to regret? That Yeltsin somehow fervently desired the continued rape and destruction of Russia for its own sake – without partaking in the subsequent loot (i.e. after his resignation) is wildly implausible.

Posted by: BM | Jun 23 2021 12:31 utc | 115

[m: under Lukashenka, the economy stagnated, I argued with a plot from Trading Economics that not really]
Piotr Berman
I recomment this article. It´s from before anybody started talking about economic sanctions by the EU.
Posted by: m | Jun 23 2021 7:05 utc | 106
Your arguments are so stale
Posted by: Paco | Jun 23 2021 7:58 utc | 109
There is a serious question if the membership in EU and NATO is a boon on the eastern edge of EU. I offered to look at the plot one can make on Trading Economics web site, “GDP PPP” for Belarus and Latvia, two neighbors in a similar position, “on the edge”, no border with Germany or Austria, choosing “MAX” for the number of years — effectively, from 1990 (or a bit later). Latvia had deeper periods of crisis, Belarus has some difficulties after 2014. No obvious win for either side.
Then m made an opinion that migration trend are a good picture of the economy — are people moving in or out? From that point of view, Latvia looks worse.
EU offers subsidies to new member, access to the market and various restrictions and arm twisting. Is the net result good?
EU model seems frayed in the recent years, in particular, to fondness for subsidizing new members is lacking, especially if they have a larger population than, say, Northern Macedonia. What is being imposed on members (and yes, unanimity masks arm twisting, otherwise it would be unworkable in the first place) is sometimes for their good, sometimes not. What is the net effect?
Because of the variety of good and bad effect, I can write article justifying any conclusion, would someone offer to pay for it. But that makes me weary of articles. One should read and check.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 23 2021 12:35 utc | 116

I have come to the conclusion that the easiest way to understand and predict ZUKUSA policy is to regard the USG as a “protection” gang. One of Trump’s great merits was that he made this much more abundantly clear to the world in general…
Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 23 2021 9:43 utc | 111
Of course, the power to bestow boons (unreliable) and poxes (very reliable) works best if a patsy can be beaten up or even killed every so often. My impression is that after the fall of Soviet Union, USA learned that to what extend it can squeeze its dearest allies (not tried on THE DEAREST one). That may explain why the father of the current PM of Canada had many independent positions, and his son has none. Canada is but one example, exceptional by allowing a father/son comparison.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 23 2021 12:44 utc | 117

Perhaps worth mentioning that Lukashenko was running against “inexperienced English teacher” because he has thrown several more viable candidates in jail on made up excuses just before the election?
The big problem in Belarus is that for people justifiably unhappy with Lukashenko antics, color revolutionaries are the only other game in the town. Russia always only works with elites of foreign countries, it never creates, supports or works with pro-Russian popular movements. It already ended in disaster in Ukraine, and Belarus is sort of in the same risk group.

Posted by: Andrey Subbotin | Jun 23 2021 12:48 utc | 118

aquadraht– a source for quote
None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Bk. II, Ch. 5; source: Die Wahlverwandtschaften, Hamburger Ausgabe, Bd. 6 (Romane und Novellen I), dtv Verlag, München, 1982, p. 397 (II.5).

Posted by: Michael Weddington | Jun 23 2021 12:59 utc | 119

Suggesting that China and Russia are “trying to take America down” is a bit of a mischaracterization. The empire based in the US is going down, irrespective of the wishes of the Russian and Chinese people, due to internal economic contradictions that are purely normal and to be expected in capitalism. In fact these contradictions are unavoidable in capitalism. If anything the Chinese and Russians are trying to ease the empire’s fall and minimize the damage the US empire does to the rest of the world in its death spasms. This flurry of sanctions being sprayed in all directions by the empire are examples of those death spasms. Another possible expressions of the empire’s death spasms would be a nuclear attack. I suspect the Russians wanted to determine at the summit if the imperial leadership still possessed sufficient awareness to know that would be a very bad idea. Apparently they were somewhat satisfied for the time being.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 23 2021 13:03 utc | 120

@115 Piotr Berman
A quess you can keep up with this Latvia-whataboutism for the rest of rhe week.
Anyway, Belarus had been in need of Russia loans already before the EU’s economic sanctions. This despite a constant flow of subsidised Russian oil and gas (amounting to 5-15% of the annul Belrusian GDP) and despite the massive devalution of the Belarusian ruble in the last ten years. That are the facts.
Lukashenko has screwed it. He will be a constant drain of ressources for Moscow.

Posted by: m | Jun 23 2021 13:43 utc | 121

William Gruff
I think I was the one that used the term “trying to take America down”.It is the wrong term for what I am thinking. More along the lines of managing US self imposed collapse, containing collateral damage ect. Though I believe the Alaska Chinese American meeting and the subsequent meeting of China and Russian foreign ministers was some sort of marker, a turning or decision point. Publicly, pushback against the US was announced, with the foreign ministers jointly say their countries would take action against US color revolutions in other countries. China’s instant response to the EU sanctions.
It will be interesting to see China’s moves in the not too distant future. The US has decided on the dragon as its enemy of choice and the dragon has taken notice. Modi’s brave Jawan in the Galwin valley learnt some hard lessons about attacking the dragon.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 13:50 utc | 122

The EU and USA are engaged in what’s known as Total War. It’s a deliberate strategy, attacking a civilian population in order to win a war. By definition, it’s a serious war crime. European colonial powers and the US killed off the indigenous peoples as Total War before there were treaties to define war crimes. In 1863 during the US Civil War, Total War was employed for the first time by a great power against -gasp- white people! The Union army used Total War to capture the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi which is perched on a cliff overlooking the Mississippi River where its artillery prevented the Union from sending war material north from captured New Orleans. The Union army under U.S. Grant (US President 1869-1877) burned all the farms east of Vicksburg. This crime was successful and General Sherman’s March To The Sea was a replay on a larger scale. Hitler used Total War against the USSR. In the last several decades, the US and NATO have used total warfare against Iraq, Iran and Syria.
But it’s a “new low” for high EU officials to publicly engage in Total War. Too bad there’s not an ICC with the independence and the balls to prosecute them.

Posted by: Cosimo | Jun 23 2021 14:14 utc | 123

Thinking a bit more about China responses and how they compare between say EU, Australia and US. The pissants like Australia and EU simply get a back hander, whereas China is holding the US close. China has hold of the US by its economy. Our dear leaders here in oz start giving cheek so China stops buying our coal and replaces it with US coal. US have got themselves in a really bad spot over Taiwan. Taiwan supplies the US auto industry with chips. That supply stops and auto manufacturing in the US stops.
US is pushing Taiwan to secede knowing it is a red line for China, but now the Americans are beginning to realize they will require Russia’s permission for them to use nukes against China in the limited war they are trying to drum up.
As for Australia, much chirping from the peanut gallery about Xi kicking an own goal ect with the soaring price of iron ore and China’s reliance on it. China has now begun diversification of supply, the results of which will start to be felt here in a few years time.
Our dear leaders have fucked my children and grand children’s future.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 14:19 utc | 124

Peter,
you don’t seem to be reading my comments. You’re so angry; you’re not actually replying to me.
You condemn me and then repeat almost verbatim identical points I made in earlier comments. If I declare “argument A,” and then you condemn me and insist “Argument A it is,” that’s silly. We’re both making argument A.

Posted by: Weaver | Jun 23 2021 14:31 utc | 125

Cosimo,
I would love to see a return to Just War Ethics or whatever you wish to call it. It’s such a beautiful set of ideals.
If we continue with total war, we’ll end up nuking one another. I’m really interested in figuring just where one could survive a nuclear winter; you’d need geothermal or wave power to supply electricity. But assuming one survives some horrible war, wouldn’t history just repeat?
The US seems to believe US dominance could prevent a nuclear war, but it was the US that enabled both Israel and Pakistan to attain nukes.

Posted by: Weaver | Jun 23 2021 14:40 utc | 126

Now m, I think you would have a greater chanse of beeing taken seriously if checked your facts.
Here’s the GDP per capita for Belarus. It’s a bumpy ride, but far from a catasrope:
Belarus GDP Per Capita 1990-2021. http://www.macrotrends.net. Retrieved 2021-06-23.

Posted by: Jörgen Hassler | Jun 23 2021 14:58 utc | 128

Sanctions aren’t aimed at the regular people per se.
They’re aimed at the ruling oligarchies and the upper middle classes.
The theory is if these groups are discomfited enough by sanctions, they will exercise their power to change the government.
As with many things, these theories exist because their proponents believe it would work against their own societies.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 23 2021 14:59 utc | 129

Weaver, I am not angry. I see the foundation of your argument as being very shaky to put int in the best possible terms.
karlof1 one explained the concept of democracy in earlier comments.
Democracy as per the oxford dictionary is very close to what karlof1 put up.
Your blind belief that all leaders of great powers must be corrupt or in cahoots with oligarchs….
As for Putin and democracy it is well worth reading the piece I linked to for vk at Patrick Armstrong’s site.
The link again https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2018/06/20/yes-putin-once-dreamed-the-american-dream/
It is about the democracy karlof1 wrote about early. With the collapse of the soviet union, Russians were suddenly thrown into an era they had never experienced. Directly electing the various level of repetitiveness in government. From very early in his presidency, Putin was the driving force in teaching democracy to the Russian people as per karlof1’s quote of Lincoln.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 15:05 utc | 130

@ Posted by: Robert Macaire | Jun 23 2021 5:28 utc | 98
There are rumors that a Swiss solution (i.e. a confederation) was ventilated, but Yeltsin immediately rejected it because it was allegedly “impracticable”. This may be a fabrication, though, as it comes from a source close to Yeltsin who’s still alive, therefore biased.
–//–
@ Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 5:14 utc | 96
It is mostly believed nowadays that Krushchev denounced Stalin for his sheer survival, not because he really believed Stalin committed all of those crimes.
There was a ferocious internal struggle for the succession of Stalin, and Krushchev was far from being one of the favorites to succeed him.
Also, there was the issue of the times Krushchev rose to power: a time where the USSR still hadn’t achieved military parity with the USA (this would only be achieved at the end of the 1960s). The USA could find a casus belli to annihilate the USSR if it wanted to, so a peaceful competition narrative had to be fabricated. The fact that the USSR was growing at a 15% per year rate also encouraged Krushchev to go peaceful, as, at that rate, the USSR would overcome the USA in a matter of a few decades (the USSR growth would plunge suddenly at the end of the 1950s and even more after 1975, but, at the time, there was optimism it could overcome the USA through the economy alone).
On the personal side, Krushchev pertained to a new generation of middle officers that rose to power during WWII. Those middle officers, alongside a whole class of middle State workers, were really very frustrated with Stalin’s style of short leash and harshness. Stalin had a technique where he alleviated to the people and threw all the pressure on the “middle management”. That is, he was very popular with the people but not so much with the “middle class” (i.e. the higher ranked State workers). It could be the case that Krushchev (this is not accepted by the scholars, I’m just speculating here) represented some kind of “middle class”/middle management/tenentist reaction to Stalin’s suffocating management. Those people wanted more freedom of action, but it’s good to remember it didn’t mean they wanted capitalism (liberalism): they wanted more autonomy within the socialist system.
Most communists retrospectively consider Krushchev’s hasty decision to throw Stalin under the bus a strategic mistake. First of all, it demoralized the effort of the Soviet people during the difficult times of 1917-1945. Second, it cut off the legacy of the USSR in two parts, alienating the newer generations from the older ones. Thirdly, it demoralized some basic concepts of socialism such as centrally planned economy etc. etc., which opened the way for any opposition within the CPSU to automatically be liberal (i.e. the traditional communists were forever relegated to conservatism). Last but not least, it opened the path to demoralize the CPSU itself (which was a central part in the end of the USSR some decades later).
The Chinese Communists learned with Krushchev’s mistake. When Deng Xiaoping rose to power, he gave an interview with an Italian journalist (the famous one who made Kissinger later admit the Vietnam War was a “useless war”), and he said: “we won’t do to Mao what Krushchev did to Stalin”. The moral of the story was clear: Mao made mistakes, but he also made much more good things; let’s not throw the bathtub water with the baby inside it.

Posted by: vk | Jun 23 2021 15:13 utc | 131

Thanks vk. I have not researched that period of the soviet union between the end of, for Russia, the great patriotic war and the collapse of the soviet union.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jun 23 2021 15:36 utc | 132

@ peter au.. it is nice to have you back! also – weaver seems like an honourable poster…

Posted by: james | Jun 23 2021 15:39 utc | 133

i have been enjoying the conversation of others and thought vk made an especially good post earlier as well.. thanks vk..

Posted by: james | Jun 23 2021 15:45 utc | 134

c1ue@129 says that sanctions are meant to punish the people until they overthrow their rulers, then reads the collective minds/mass mind of the rulers here to tell us that they believe that punishing the people here will make them overthrow themselves. Given how many policies of the domestic ruling class collective punish the masses for the benefit of the rulers, it is nuts, as in crazed reactionary, to think the rulers hear live in fear of the masses outraged at living badly. Sanction punish the people…period. This demented comment also assumes there are no benefits to the rulers from the intimidation of others when a nation is targeted.
Weaver’s too confused to talk to, as near as I can tell.
Belarus is deemed by many to be a disaster because the local bourgeoisie isn’t getting rich. Nonetheless, it is true there has been a steady decline. How this is worse than the horror show Yeltsin inflicted on Russia, complete with a decline in population, is a mystery to me. Lastly on Belarus, most certainly the real opposition candidates were prevented from running. That’s why Tsihnouskaya, one of sever feeble stand-ins, *did not win* the vote…which is the charge made. Like Biden being the triumphant not-Trump candidate, any rigging was done long before the counting of the votes, which is why falsifying the count wasn’t even necessary.
Deng went cap in hand to beg for money from the imperialists, fancying a Great Leap Forward on IOUs. He wasn’t particularly successful, it took many years for the neocolonial concessions to pay off in unbalanced growth. A system that produces billionaires is intrinsically flawed and weakens the nation, as we should all know.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 23 2021 15:46 utc | 135

@ lysias #63
Anyway, my recollection from having read it so many years ago is that, while it makes very clear how monstrous the behavior of Nazi Germany was during the invasion of Russia, the novel basically says that morally Stalinist Russia was no better.
Well, this is the central theme of western ideology since the cold war started—to equate Stalin with Hitler. But if you spend some time in Russia, you will find that a great many people, especially older folks, have nothing but reverence for the man.
Why was Stalin so loved by the people, even if some intellectuals found much to complain about?
The Russian philosopher, writer, and eventual dissident and exile, Alexander Zinoviev explains:

Why did my mother keep the portrait of Stalin? She was a peasant woman. Before collectivization, our family lived well. But at what cost did they get it? Hard work from dawn to dusk. And what were the prospects for her children (she gave birth to eleven children!)? To become peasants—at best, artisans.
Collectivization began. Destruction of the village. Flight of people to cities. And the result of this? In our family, one person became a professor, another became a plant director, a third became a colonel, and three became engineers. And something similar happened in millions of other families.
I do not want to use evaluative expressions “bad” and “good” here.
I just want to say that in this era in the country there was an unprecedented in the history of mankind the rise of many millions of people from the very bottom of society into masters, engineers, teachers, doctors, artists, officers, scientists, writers, directors.

‘Unprecedented in the history of mankind.’
Yes, that is correct. Russia before the revolution was one of the wealthiest countries, and also one of the most backward, where vast numbers of its people were landless and illiterate peasants with no access to education whatsoever, and hence, no prospects for upward mobility.
People forget that Stalin ‘the monster’ built a world-class education system that was universally available to ALL, free of charge, from primary school to PhD. He industrialized and urbanized the country at a pace that has not been equaled before or since, even in today’s China. People went from illiterate, landless peasants to urban professionals, simply because Stalin’s Russia made that possible. [Even today’s shrunken Russia has more cities of one million people than the US!]
Of course all of that rapid, tumultuous change did not come without friction, or even what could fairly be called heavy-handed reprisals against squeaky wheels who tried to stand in the way of the plan in motion. This is what the western narrative has concentrated upon, while completely obscuring the massive social progress for tens of millions of ordinary folks. Just as today we are inundated with fakery about the Uighur ‘genocide,’ while the CPC has lifted eight hundred million folks out of poverty. About which we hear, naturally, nothing. Crickets.
I will also say that I have read the masterful Grossman novel Stalingrad [Chandler translation]. This is basically the first half of Life and Fate, which I have not much interest in reading, since it is basically another Soviet intellectual gripe, disconnected from the real-world problems of working folks, grousing about the system, from his ivory tower perspective.
But I would doubt very much that Grossman morally equates Stalin and Hitler, as our ‘reviewer’ here flatly states. In fact I find that a quite incredible statement, knowing his other work.
Life and Fate was published eventually in the USSR 1988. [Of course there was a lot of domestic demonization of the Stalin era, beginning with Khruschev, just like we saw in China beginning with Deng.] But these gripes have little credibility, much less people like Sozhenitsyn, who basically invented their fantastic stories out of whole cloth. [I remember having to read ‘A day in the life…’ in a freshman lit course and found it completely unbelievable, even at that impressionable age, lol!]
As for the Germans and their ‘moral’ standard in Russia, we can turn to another Krasnaya Zvezda war correspondent, Ilya Ehrenburg:

Ehrenburg relied heavily on captured German letters and diaries, as well as on interviews he conducted with German prisoners of war.
Ehrenburg’s outrage at the deeds he read about in German diaries…grew to a feverish pitch in a column written in October, 1942.
Titled ‘A German’ it is devoted to a diary of a Friedrich Schmidt, secretary of the secret field police, 626’th group, 1’st Tank Army, stationed in the village of Budennovka, near Mariupol in Ukraine.
As presented by Ehrenburg, Schmidt oscillates between contempt and admiration for the people he was torturing.
Quoting from Schmidt’s diary:
I woke up at three in the morning. I had a terrible dream. That is because I have to bump off 30 captured youth today.
If my family only knew what a difficult day I had today! The ditch was almost completely filled with corpses. And how heroically this Bolshevik youth meets its death.
What is this—is it love for the fatherland or is it communism that has entered their skin and blood?
Some among them, especially the girls, did not shed a single tear. I am transcribing these horrible lines only with great difficulty.

Ehrenburg comments:
It seems that in all of world literature there is no such despicable villain. A pedantic German, he records how many eggs he ate, how many girls he shot, and how he alternates between constipation and diarrhea…he writes with enthusiasm only about sausage, this executioner and sausage-maker.

Fascination and Enmity: Russia and Germany as Entangled Histories, 1914–1945
—Edited by Michael David-Fox, Peter Holquist, Alexander M. Martin; University of Pittsburgh Press, page 140
How can there be moral equivalence?

Posted by: Gordog | Jun 23 2021 16:03 utc | 136

@ Gordog | Jun 23 2021 16:03 utc | 136:
You really do need to post more frequently.
BTW Zinoviev’s Yawning Heights has been sitting on my shelves for years. Is it worth reading?

Posted by: corvo | Jun 23 2021 16:49 utc | 137

@steven t johnson #135
Glad to see you still cannot seem to read or understand what is posted, vs. what you feel you must emit.
It is interesting how your reading comprehension is at par with your grasp of history and many other subjects.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 23 2021 16:50 utc | 138

@Piotr Berman #116:

I offered to look at the plot one can make on Trading Economics web site…

Another, even more powerful instrument to analyze economic development of countries is CEPII Country Profiles, e.g., Belarus, Latvia. Aside from the main “Broad patterns” tab, take a look at “Balance & Forex” and “Products & Partners” tabs.
(CEPII Country Profiles doesn’t work in Safari browser on macOS; use Firefox instead.)

Posted by: S | Jun 23 2021 17:33 utc | 139

Julian @109–
Thanks for your reply! The Dawes Plan didn’t work and was replaced in 1929 by the Young Plan, which ended up creating the Bank of International Settlements–BIS. The Outlaw US Empire gained control of the world’s monetary system shortly after WW1 through the machinations of the Versailles Treaty, whose failure generated the Dawes the Young plans, and it would gain an even tighter grip after WW2 at Bretton Woods. To discover how the Empire gained control, I highly suggest reading this transcript of Dr. Hudson’s lecture/interview to the Oxford Economics Society where he reviews that history that didn’t have to occur as you’ll learn. But that isn’t the only way the Empire sought control. In the preview you’ll learn of the false narrative that was employed to turn a pacifist populous that pushed through three Neutrality Acts during the 1930s into one that provided almost zero resistance to the 1947 National Security Act that created the CIA and contravened the UN Charter and thus the US Constitution. Also important to know is the evolution of how the Outlaw US Empire views national sovereignty, which is explored in the linked article.
But what I hope to discover in that book is the path of transition from Hull’s surrender as described in point 14 in the above link to the further extraterritoriality well described in point 13 that permeates Post-WW2 policy and particularly Kenan’s philosophy that the Empire should have all the resources it requires while sharing none. It should also be noted that the Empire exercised effective political control over most Latin American nations at WW2’s end along with what’s called a multilateral agency–the Organization of American States–that is merely a geopolitical pawn the Empire completely controls.
In other words, how to explain the vast contradiction between FDR and Hull’s UN Charter and actual policy that continuously violates the Charter from its inception in October 1945 to today.
There’s another important book that IMO should be read by all, The Economic Consequences of the Peace written by Keynes in 1919 shortly after he abandoned the happenings at Versailles and published in 1920. It can be freely downloaded at the link. He predicts the treaty’s failure and that it would soon spawn the next war. It provides vital context omitted by most texts.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 23 2021 17:58 utc | 140

@136 Gordog
Thanks for that perspective on Stalin’s great achievement.
If it was unprecedented in history, it was also followed by an equally spectacular Cultural Revolution in China. This of course is much maligned, although the data as examined by Ramin Mazaheri shows how the peasants in the countryside became empowered and educated, to form the vast body of human capital essential to China’s rising ever since.
Mazaheri makes his own point that history and culture are written in the cities, and it was the cities that felt the greatest turmoil from the Cultural Revolution, while the peasants felt only gain. I can see a similar mischaracterization happening with Stalin’s achievement, drawing from your account.
Interestingly, Mao wrote a sharp disagreement with the Khrushchev condemnation of Stalin. He praised Stalin, and lamented the turncoat rhetoric in the USSR. I wonder to what extent Mao saw Stalin’s achievement as a pillar of what he attempted (and succeeded with, in my view) in the Cultural Revolution?
I regard both Stalin and Mao as great men who were on the side of the unprivileged, and who built great societies from that very allegiance.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 23 2021 18:44 utc | 141

@ Gordog | Jun 23 2021 16:03 utc | 136.. i second @ 137 corvos comment to you.. thank you for all that. post more often..

Posted by: james | Jun 23 2021 18:45 utc | 142

Thanks, Corvo, Grieved and James. Appreciate the kind words.
I haven’t read Yawning Heights so can’t say much. But Zinoviev was a fascinating character. What I think of as a ‘big man.’
He graduated from the aviation academy as a junior lieutenant and was a pilot in WW2, flying the famed Ilyushin ‘Shturmovik,’ which is how I stumbled upon him in my readings about Soviet aviators. He only flew relatively few combat missions toward the end of the war, but did receive The Order of the Red Star, a notable decoration.

I liked to feel like the owner of a combat vehicle, drop bombs, shoot cannons and machine guns; the fear of perishing was relieved by the realization that ‘this is only once.’

Michael Kirkwood and Philip Hanson edited Alexander Zinoviev as Writer and Thinker. Definitely a good read.
Here is a short pdf essay by Hanson: