Reddit mentions of Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall

Again, my background includes a graduate degree on a Russia-related topic, but not military history, so take what I have with a grain of salt.

In the late-1980s, Glasnost and Perestroika were formidable political movements, but largely window dressing. Chernobyl is a great example of the Soviet's attempt to control the narrative and willingness to lie to not only its citizenry but allies about the full effect of the radiation. At the time, the USSR was "reducing" its military expenditures (they just went off book) while trying to appear more open, which was a way to get the West's eyes off the USSR's business. It was signed at the twilight of the USSR - by the end of 1989 there were revolts in East Germany and many of the satellite Soviet states. The Soviet economy had tanked, they were running low on everything and were getting wheat from the West. The wheels were coming off the tractor, as it were, so the Russians were signing agreements with the West to appear more inclusive and open as a way to secure food, currency and political support. The Soviet Navy and the US Navy conducted joint exercises, and warships from the USSR docked in San Diego while US Navy vessels docked in Vladivostok. It was all a show. Included in that show was Open Skies.

Was it important? As a sign of peace and reconciliation? Sure. But, did it have military value? No. US spy satellites routinely take very clear and accurate photographs, it's how the US knew what was going on in Ukraine and could orient sea-to-land missiles from ships. So, does Open Skies provide valuable intel? Not really. Open Skies requires specific equipment flying along specific routes, so obviously countries prepare for those missions. With the advent of spy satellites and better human intelligence, the US doesn't need Open Skies to provide intel.

I posit that countries see the agreement as being from an era where reconciliation was possible and Russia may join the Western fold - there had been talk of them joining NATO. With Open Skies gone, it doesn't change anything. It just removes the veneer of peace that we constructed for 20 years and pretended wasn't there.

From the moment Russia emerged from the Soviet rubble, they had called for an elimination of Jackson-Vanik and the establishment of permanent normal trade relations. The US wasn't keen to do that as Russia had long evaded international law and never fully embraced democracy. The Chechen Wars saw gross human rights violations, including a very powerful rape campaign (read Andrew Meier's book on that), installed strongman Ramzan Kadyrov and then started numerous conflicts, including Georgia in 2008. Russia has never followed the rule of law, they have no real free press and much of the country is run by a cadre of politically-connected quasi-political leaders empowered by Putin. But, so long as agreements like Open Skies are in place, and Jackson-Vanik is gone, it gives the appearance of some semblance of Russia's willingness to engage in dialogue with the West. While I don't agree with Trump on much, calling BS to the Russian agreement (whether that's his intention or not) is actually a good move.

Russia has never been an honest broker or a fair dealer, and as long as we use cognitive dissonance to present that it isn't the case, the more we'll have to contend with in the next couple of decades.

First of all, like the other posters, you are very easily cherry-picking your historical fact, especially as it relates to contemporary post-socialist history; but, I would argue that your frame of reference is too narrow, and for reasons that are yours your own, are focused on very recent events.

First of all, Ukraine as a country didn't really become the Ukraine we have today until 1991. Prior to 1939, huge swaths of present-day Ukraine were Polish which prior to Poland, had been under the Austro-Hungarian Empire and prior to that, Galitsiya (Галиция) or about a dozen political iterations going back 800 years. So, when we're talking about antagonizing Russia, what we're talking about is something that is a bit more nebulous. Ukrainian borders didn't really come into effect until 1954, and even then, changed year after year.

Crimea, for instance, only became a portion of the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 having been previously a federated state of the Russian Empire and later an autonomous region within the USSR that became an oblast (область) (a state) from there. Crimea was never "Ukrainian" and has been an important point of Russian pride (Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade are still important for their respective countries). Crimea was only under Ukrainian SSR control because of geographical constraints that was meant to more effectively manager the USSR. When the USSR fell, Crimea, like many Russian citizens, became effectively "stateless" and was long felt to be Russian and should have been repatriated.

Russia's re-annexation of Crimea 'righted' an historical injustice - the collapse of the USSR. Putin, and many others within the United Russia movement, consider the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century to be the collapse of the USSR and their actions, as I have explained here, have been an effort to recapture lands that escaped. Whether sabre rattling through the CIS (see: soft force against Belarus; war with Georgia; war with Ukraine; Armenia was angry at Russian arms exports to their unfriendly neighbors but have a major change of heart apparently). Russia has consistently threatened violence or economic sanctions on "Near Abroad" (ближнее зарубежье) countries who do not fall in-line with policy set-forth in Moscow.

The last 8,810 days for Russia have been a "rebuild" or a way to find a way to reunify the USSR and put it back together. Recent US involvement in Ukraine were not the impetus for Russian aggression in the CIS or Near Abroad -- that's too easy an argument and excuse. It can be distilled down to: If the US did nothing in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be aggressive. Yet, to what degree can that not only be proven but an acceptable argument?

The late 1990s saw Russia engage the break-away Republic of Chechnya in war (an area that the US was never involved in) and saw the Russian air force use large-scale carpeting bombing and door-to-door "mouse-holing" tactics that saw young men rounded-up and executed and young women raped by members of the Russian army. Andrew Meier's Black Earth clearly outlines Russian action in Chechnya (with a particularly interesting story about a woman being sodomized by a broom). To prevent large-scale migration out of cities, Russia deployed a tactic of Landmines that continue to injure and kill to this day. By the prevailing logic, this is some sort of reaction to US imperialism that as meant Russia is reactionary not aggressive and that it has been successive U.S. policy since before Bill Clinton that has put Russia on this footing. That is something I just don't buy.

Would we say that Russian involvement in the Slobodan Milosevic affair was, at its heart, resulting from American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo? Remember that Bill Clinton took an unpopular approach and supported Muslims. Mark MacKinnon's (2008) New Cold War is a great description of Russian involvement in the affairs. Russian involvement was to protect the integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which had long been in Moscow's sphere of influence and was another multi-ethnic state breaking-up, causing a further degradation of Russian influence in Europe. Josip Tito was a close Russian ally who ran a country whose borders were with Italy, Austria in Western Europe and provided a key strategic point for the Soviet Navy and Air Force on the Adriatic. Gee, I wonder why Russia would be so keen to prevent the further dissolution of Yugoslavia.

The problem with taking Euromaiden as your departure point is that it ignores a good 70 years of history before the collapse of the Soviet Union and wholly ignores Russia's overt political goals: reunifying independent states. It places the blame on Washington for everything that has transpired, white-washes Russia's military action and provides them a convenient excuse. I mean, I get anti-American political sentiment is popular, but let's try to be at least a bit fair here. Russia's political actions in Europe and former States are not simply reactionary to NATO expansion or U.S. and European trade interest in Ukraine. It is, largely, a rejection of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union expanded significantly as it annexed countries during WWII. It forced Russification projects on its citizens who were forced to lose their language, their culture and way of life because Moscow had instituted some new harebrained scheme that was going to lead to glory. Many never were willing participants in the grand socialist Union that became a moribund state. Many wanted out and their policy as been to build closer relations with Washington, London and the EU. Let's not assume that Ukraine wasn't a willing participant in building closer relations. The Canadian Army has taken part in training exercises in Ukraine since the 1990s, and this has been a signal to Russia that Kiev's policy is to favour Western "expansion".

This isn't all some grand American conspiracy. Russia has key interests in the reason and ignore their will and the last 70 years of history is too convenient for political analysts who want to make statements like:

>We need to be honest that our allies to the south are also provoking them by promoting anti-Russian governments along their borders. Russia has a very tumultuous history with Western European nations and the last thing we need to do is further militarize the region.

Well, that's just too convenient an excuse that offers nothing concrete but an overly simplistic take on a very complicated situation, the least of which is some solely devised grand American plan to subvert Russia that only political analysts on Counter-Punch and Reddit can see.