Im an artist & im learning alot thanks. I need to get educated about finances In the state of the globe today its a daunting task. Im an artist so ove never been very good w/ finance. I do find it engaging now ( i still loath the lack of fairness) but im not as naive anymore. Again thanks ☮️
I'm a happy subscriber. Looking forward to you writing about my country, South Africa.
Ethiopia will be rescued because its USA's bulwark against competing powers. Favouritism is a factor in economics. Money is faith, and America relies on that more than anyone else. Again, something beyond GDP etc.
For reflection when you return to Russia. I began with more opinion than fact but reversed that with the third installment of 'Putin Isn't the Only Monster in Ukraine' - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/ukraine
I like your articles on Ukraine. I have some critiques but I like how you mention the West's interventions in Ukraine. I have mixed feelings on Mearsheimer and Chomsky.
I'll leave you with this quote which is why America continued NATO after USSR died between Clinton and Yeltsin
Boris Yeltsin straight up told Bill Clinton -- "“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton said Europeans won't like that. and Yetsin replied
"I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. "
If Russia tells you in 1999 that they want to conquer all of Europe, then that's probably a decent justification for Clinton and Bush would need to keep NATO.
An interesting anecdote but I'd need confirmation. Secondly, Yeltsin was a hopeless alcoholic. To watch videos of him staggering offers no belief to me that he was representing Russia. Have you seen the BBC's 'TraumaZone', surprisingly the best view of what led to Putin?
Even if NATO was needed to stop Russian imperialism (which I don't believe), why wasn't a simple fortification necessary instead of expansion?
Russia's no angel, no big power is. Putin's no angel, but sometimes he's what people want or need. I say that whilst paining for activists there.
What NATO's done to Ukraine is goddamned awful. History shows that NATO/USA clearly antagonised. Even the Nazi angle, which I first thought crazy, turned out to have more truth than not (from my follow-up articles, you'll see I spent time on that).
I respect your writing, I'm thankful for you reading me. Argument welcomed :)
A) I agree no big power is an angel. America does bad things all the time. Any power would do anything in their own interest as you wrote in your piece. America did a coup in Ghana, my family's country to our first President. Also, yes, agreed, Euromaidan wasn't completely an indigenous revolution, but that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians doesn't want to puppet of Russia anymore in 2023. In 1990, Ukraine was slightly richer than than Poland, now Poland is 4x richer:
B) My Ukrainian friends who are fluent in Russian & Ukrainian would love it if Ukraine was a "Western Puppet". because they would love to be a Poland or a Czechia right now instead of what they are right now or a Belarus.
C) Yea Boris was a clown, but he still representing the interests of the Russian elite who are far more irredentist than he was. I haven't seen that specific BBC documentary but I have seen others.
The I showed you btw was from the NATO dialogue Istanbul Summit in 1999.
D) If you recall, at the time, Yeltsin was still in Moldova, doing "peacekeeping" in Transnistria. In addition, Russia was already helping Abkhazians and South Ossentians in their conflict with Georgia before Russia's invasion in 2008. Clinton wanted to work with Russia, but Russia was still doing things that the Liberal West found distasteful.
E) In addition, I take issue with the term "NATO expansion". These eastern European countries wanted to join NATO and its a process to join NATO. Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since its independence, even when George Bush said there would be a roadmap for Ukraine, Ukraine wasn't even close to being ready to join NATO.
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and etc. were eager to make changes to join NATO because they remembered how crappy the Soviet Union was for them.
F) Baker's talk about "not moving one inch eastward" was never signed in a Treaty, Memoradum, or Conference. It was just said, but it wasn't binding. But what was binding was the Budapest Memorandum where Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, and in return Ukraine gives up its nukes. I blame Russia more than I blame America. If Putin wanted Ukraine so badly it should have covertly interfered in Ukraine better than America did.
G) I am not an American hegemonist at all (in fact I love UAE and Singapore for creating alternative visions of how a country can be super rich wtihout being a liberal democracy), but Russia's alternative vision is not great which is why most Eastern European countries from Estonia to Slovakia to Romania were jumping at the chance to be a Western Puppet.
H) It's like if Latin America tried to join Russia's sphere of influence, which btw I have no problem if they wanted to do that. But it says something that only Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are the only anti-American, Russian allies while the vast majority of Eastern Europe except Moldova, Belarus, and Serbia are pro-American, anti Russian.
Regarding what people think they want, a lot of manipulation gets them there. We all grew up with American adverts telling us to aspire to be American. No one cared about American basketball and 'football' yet black youth were suddenly wearing knock-off team shirts and American University names. Then, one day, Fanta is sponsoring local basketball games.
I've watched many documentaries too, 'TraumaZone' for which i gave you the link, is unique. It's a collage of leftover video snippets that, put together, are a major study in perestroika and sociology. It took me a while to find its flow, but then i was hooked. It was like watching history in real time.
Not moving eastward was promised, and that is documented. And Russia believed it, giving up East Germany in the spirit of it. But that's not as important as America knowing that Russia had a red line.
Mearsheimer got it right about their always being friction between powers. That transcends ideology and contracts.
I'll watch TraumaZone but we probably just agree to disagree. There's probably some fundamental priors were disagree on.
As for James Baker's statement. It was a promise... yes it was documented... but it doesn't matter unless it's in a treaty/memorandum/protocol. Unless it's in a binding treaty just giving assurances don't really mean much. Countries break assurances all the time, but breaking a treaty/memorandum is a bigger deal.
Also, James Baker giving a promise to Gorbachav, the Soviet Union who lost power literally months after. That's why I made a comparison to the Budapest Memorandum, that was a binding treaty that Russia broke. Baker's promised assurances to Soviet Union is not even remotely at the same level as the Budapest Memo.
The West isn't perfect but American lifestyle is what Eastern Europeans wanted.. Russia could have been that way too but it fucked up IMF's shock therapy program. Poland, Czech, and Hungary dealt with shock therapy much better.
We can look at what people say and what people do. Yes people say they want the Western lifestyle, but they also show it with moving there. Migration patterns are the ultimate demonstration of what people want. The Entire Eastern Bloc hates Russia and enjoys getting richer. Russia is just a commodity exporter that grows when prices are up and declines when commodity prices are down. If Russia was able to provide an alternative vision like UAE and Singapore that increases living standards and allows people to create without adopting all that Western liberalism prides itself to be then people would flock there. The Soviet Union provided an alternate vision that was successful until the seventies when it just became a glorified gas station., Russia today is still basically the seventies and eighties USSR except with oligarchs who bought privatized government owned enterprises instead of corrupt bureaucrats.
I'll definitely take a look at TraumaZone to see if my mind changes on anything. Thanks Mike.
Im an artist & im learning alot thanks. I need to get educated about finances In the state of the globe today its a daunting task. Im an artist so ove never been very good w/ finance. I do find it engaging now ( i still loath the lack of fairness) but im not as naive anymore. Again thanks ☮️
You are welcome!
Forgery would combine your skill and intention :)
I have read almost if not all your articles. I like your perspective of events and your approach to analysis. Keep up the good work
Congratulations on getting this far, Yaw.
You keep pumping out good content.
I'm a happy subscriber. Looking forward to you writing about my country, South Africa.
Ethiopia will be rescued because its USA's bulwark against competing powers. Favouritism is a factor in economics. Money is faith, and America relies on that more than anyone else. Again, something beyond GDP etc.
For reflection when you return to Russia. I began with more opinion than fact but reversed that with the third installment of 'Putin Isn't the Only Monster in Ukraine' - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/ukraine
I like your articles on Ukraine. I have some critiques but I like how you mention the West's interventions in Ukraine. I have mixed feelings on Mearsheimer and Chomsky.
I'll leave you with this quote which is why America continued NATO after USSR died between Clinton and Yeltsin
Boris Yeltsin straight up told Bill Clinton -- "“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton said Europeans won't like that. and Yetsin replied
"I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. "
If Russia tells you in 1999 that they want to conquer all of Europe, then that's probably a decent justification for Clinton and Bush would need to keep NATO.
Source:
https://icds.ee/en/clinton-archives-confirm-the-need-for-nato-enlargement/
https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/russia-putin-inherited-hell-on-earth-traumazone
An interesting anecdote but I'd need confirmation. Secondly, Yeltsin was a hopeless alcoholic. To watch videos of him staggering offers no belief to me that he was representing Russia. Have you seen the BBC's 'TraumaZone', surprisingly the best view of what led to Putin?
Even if NATO was needed to stop Russian imperialism (which I don't believe), why wasn't a simple fortification necessary instead of expansion?
Russia's no angel, no big power is. Putin's no angel, but sometimes he's what people want or need. I say that whilst paining for activists there.
What NATO's done to Ukraine is goddamned awful. History shows that NATO/USA clearly antagonised. Even the Nazi angle, which I first thought crazy, turned out to have more truth than not (from my follow-up articles, you'll see I spent time on that).
I respect your writing, I'm thankful for you reading me. Argument welcomed :)
I enjoy the argument also.
A) I agree no big power is an angel. America does bad things all the time. Any power would do anything in their own interest as you wrote in your piece. America did a coup in Ghana, my family's country to our first President. Also, yes, agreed, Euromaidan wasn't completely an indigenous revolution, but that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians doesn't want to puppet of Russia anymore in 2023. In 1990, Ukraine was slightly richer than than Poland, now Poland is 4x richer:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=PL-UA
B) My Ukrainian friends who are fluent in Russian & Ukrainian would love it if Ukraine was a "Western Puppet". because they would love to be a Poland or a Czechia right now instead of what they are right now or a Belarus.
C) Yea Boris was a clown, but he still representing the interests of the Russian elite who are far more irredentist than he was. I haven't seen that specific BBC documentary but I have seen others.
The I showed you btw was from the NATO dialogue Istanbul Summit in 1999.
D) If you recall, at the time, Yeltsin was still in Moldova, doing "peacekeeping" in Transnistria. In addition, Russia was already helping Abkhazians and South Ossentians in their conflict with Georgia before Russia's invasion in 2008. Clinton wanted to work with Russia, but Russia was still doing things that the Liberal West found distasteful.
E) In addition, I take issue with the term "NATO expansion". These eastern European countries wanted to join NATO and its a process to join NATO. Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since its independence, even when George Bush said there would be a roadmap for Ukraine, Ukraine wasn't even close to being ready to join NATO.
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and etc. were eager to make changes to join NATO because they remembered how crappy the Soviet Union was for them.
F) Baker's talk about "not moving one inch eastward" was never signed in a Treaty, Memoradum, or Conference. It was just said, but it wasn't binding. But what was binding was the Budapest Memorandum where Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, and in return Ukraine gives up its nukes. I blame Russia more than I blame America. If Putin wanted Ukraine so badly it should have covertly interfered in Ukraine better than America did.
G) I am not an American hegemonist at all (in fact I love UAE and Singapore for creating alternative visions of how a country can be super rich wtihout being a liberal democracy), but Russia's alternative vision is not great which is why most Eastern European countries from Estonia to Slovakia to Romania were jumping at the chance to be a Western Puppet.
H) It's like if Latin America tried to join Russia's sphere of influence, which btw I have no problem if they wanted to do that. But it says something that only Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are the only anti-American, Russian allies while the vast majority of Eastern Europe except Moldova, Belarus, and Serbia are pro-American, anti Russian.
My NATO article serves as main response.
Regarding what people think they want, a lot of manipulation gets them there. We all grew up with American adverts telling us to aspire to be American. No one cared about American basketball and 'football' yet black youth were suddenly wearing knock-off team shirts and American University names. Then, one day, Fanta is sponsoring local basketball games.
I've watched many documentaries too, 'TraumaZone' for which i gave you the link, is unique. It's a collage of leftover video snippets that, put together, are a major study in perestroika and sociology. It took me a while to find its flow, but then i was hooked. It was like watching history in real time.
Not moving eastward was promised, and that is documented. And Russia believed it, giving up East Germany in the spirit of it. But that's not as important as America knowing that Russia had a red line.
Mearsheimer got it right about their always being friction between powers. That transcends ideology and contracts.
I'll watch TraumaZone but we probably just agree to disagree. There's probably some fundamental priors were disagree on.
As for James Baker's statement. It was a promise... yes it was documented... but it doesn't matter unless it's in a treaty/memorandum/protocol. Unless it's in a binding treaty just giving assurances don't really mean much. Countries break assurances all the time, but breaking a treaty/memorandum is a bigger deal.
Also, James Baker giving a promise to Gorbachav, the Soviet Union who lost power literally months after. That's why I made a comparison to the Budapest Memorandum, that was a binding treaty that Russia broke. Baker's promised assurances to Soviet Union is not even remotely at the same level as the Budapest Memo.
The West isn't perfect but American lifestyle is what Eastern Europeans wanted.. Russia could have been that way too but it fucked up IMF's shock therapy program. Poland, Czech, and Hungary dealt with shock therapy much better.
We can look at what people say and what people do. Yes people say they want the Western lifestyle, but they also show it with moving there. Migration patterns are the ultimate demonstration of what people want. The Entire Eastern Bloc hates Russia and enjoys getting richer. Russia is just a commodity exporter that grows when prices are up and declines when commodity prices are down. If Russia was able to provide an alternative vision like UAE and Singapore that increases living standards and allows people to create without adopting all that Western liberalism prides itself to be then people would flock there. The Soviet Union provided an alternate vision that was successful until the seventies when it just became a glorified gas station., Russia today is still basically the seventies and eighties USSR except with oligarchs who bought privatized government owned enterprises instead of corrupt bureaucrats.
I'll definitely take a look at TraumaZone to see if my mind changes on anything. Thanks Mike.
I have a part 4 in the works about the conflict in Ethiopia