Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin

I highly encourage people to watch “How the United States created Vladimir Putin” that was presented in Yale University by Vladimir Pozner. It gives another perspective that’s often ignored how US and European foreign policy has played part in shaping what Russia is today. ▶ this video

To get better understanding what's really driving Russian government and Putin I strongly recommend to watch this talk ▶ this video

> When it comes to USSR/Russia, I am not aware of the good acts. It’s not just that thy do bad things, it’s that I never hear of any of the good things they do in the world at large. There is an interview from Yale University with Vladimir Pozner that is very worth watching: ▶ this video It is absolutely insane that western media does not report anything positive on Russia and I hope it is obvious that it can't be a the case that a state can be that comically evil. And if not foreign policy at least cultural stuff should at least receive some positive attention with Russia having a rich tradition in theater, ballet, music and so on. The USSR did plenty to support its lesser developed republics. In fact that is is why many Russian nationalist saw it very critically, seeing as their land would give more that it received. Even today Russia has extremely good relations with the countries of central asia. As for foreign aid not only did it sent lots of aid to other socialist regimes but also many national liberation movements speeding up massively the de-colonization of Africa. The Russian Federation is also doing plenty of good. They help keeping the massive dominance of the US and it allies at least a little bit in check supporting many countries that are shunned by them. Syria would have been overrun by terrorists by now if Russia had not helped them. Of course you can twist every good news to make Russia look bad. Russian athletes are successful? Only the result of doping. Stabilit

Interestingly, Kaliningrad is also brought up every single time in order to dismiss the argument raised in the parent comment. I wouldn't call your comment US propaganda because it's such a throw-around these days that one could automatically use it to dismiss people that don't share your view. The crucial difference, in case is not clear, is that a missile placed in Ukraine would hit Moscow, the capital of Russia, in minutes. This is much more threatening to core Russia interests and Putin would not live with it. Before rushing to putting all the blame on Russia just because "Putin-bad": I would strongly encourage people who are interested to know more to watch the following talks, from ages ago, given at reputable US universities because let's be honest, none of us is geopolitical historian two weeks ago on this topic so why don't we all do a bit more research. [1] A good overview of the history, 7 years ago from a talk @ U Chicago. ( link ) [2] Another one from a talk @ Yale: ▶ this video

There was no signed agreement, I'm not disputing that. And I don't think it's valid to use the term "hearsay" for a transcript. Putin is putin, he's dictator with no regard for human life at this point. What I think though, is that the west was ruthless with Russia after SU collapse in the 90s and early 2000s which actually created the resentment we see now. ▶ this video This talk is a tad dramatic but very well captures the public sentiment I believe. Unlike eastern europian countries Russia couldn't just join eu/nato and started retaliating only when Georgia and Ukraine were on their path to nato. Not that unreasonable if you ask me. > Yeah, 'just a fact of life'. NATO expansion into smaller countries, due to this 'fact of life' is a 'fact of life' itself. As this war (unfortunately) which I believe wouldn't happen if ukrainian leaders were a bit smarter (and it wouldn't mean becoming Belarus - one could be smth like Kazakhstan in terms of foreign policy).

Putin was pretty pro-West, even wanted Russia to join NATO when he started out. Analyzing what happened and how the mistakes can be avoided might be a good step. I recommend watching this video of Vladimir Pozner speaking about it at Yale University. ▶ this video As for right now, I guess the main thing is to support the refugees as best we can and pray they will be able to return soon.

Well, here’s a talk at Yale that makes the same points. I don’t know if everything in there is factually correct. But it does very clearly why Putin is acting the way he is. ▶ this video

"good aggression" Be aware that most people cannot read Chinese or Russian, and as such their whole world perspective is fed by an one sided narrative. I suggest you listen to these[1][2] talks, and Putin's speech[3] on NATO expansion in Munich in 2007. Pozner[1] pointed out that up to 2007, Putin really tried to be friend with the West, including asking to join NATO. Of course they were "the enemy". [1] ▶ this video [2] link [3] link

>Ukraine would never had joined NATO because it was an active war zone anyways. It does not prevent NATO from supplying weapons and training the Ukrainian army. The US reconnaissance planes have conducted regular patrols over Ukrainian territory. The British even tried to build naval bases in Berdyansk and Ochakovo. And with active and heated territorial disputes it's easy to see a hypothetical scenario of Ukraine trying to re-capture Donbas and Crimea by force after it felt it's sufficiently strong or Russia is weak enough, like Georgia tried with South Osetia. >And relations were relatively good I suggest watching the following videos if you want to learn about alternative points of view: ▶ this video link

Here is an interesting lecture Vladimir Pozner (Russian journalist) gave at the Yale University about Putin, the Unites States and Ukraine - ▶ this video It's 3 years old, but relevant up until today, imho.

"Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" is a much older ideal, IIRC it has roots as far as in early 90s. And if you stretch it enough you can even trace it back to Charles de Gaulle. But for it to happen not only Russia has to significantly improve internally, but also EU itself has to be different. For starters it would have to be truly independent from the US influence and Brussel's grip on the union would have to be weaker. Russian political culture historically is very firm on being able to independently decide its own fate (and no, it's not a matter of "democratization"). Take the current EU issues with the Poles and multiply it a hundredfold to get a rough approximation of what the current EU would have with Russia. Before 2007 (see the Munich speech) Russia sincerely tried to join the EU and the collective West. But the condition "proposed" at the time and attitude towards Russia fundamentally collided with that deep culture, resulting in the situation which we see today. If you want to learn more about it from a non-Western perspective, I recommend watching ▶ this video

personal attacks aside ... don't take _my_ word for it, ask people with skin in the game: Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin: ▶ this video > On September 27, 2018, Yale's Program in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Poynter Fellowship for Journalism hosted Vladimir Pozner, the acclaimed Russian-American journalist and broadcaster. Pozner spoke on the impact of US foreign policy towards Russia after the Soviet Union has been disbanded, and shared his opinions on a range of issues raised by the audience, from the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, to Skripal poisoning, to the state of independent media in Russia and the US. Vladimir Pozner Jr.: link .