<<No, rational would be to help the Russians ,, we choose not to and to all appearances it is intentional...We want their country at lower then fire sale prices, and we are working on it... The guys who make the decisions see this way as much more rational...>>
Your problem RR is that you swing from extreme opinion to extreme opinion. You assume that those in power are omniscient and that all decisions are made in full awareness of their consequences and done in all intentionality. In your attempt to understand the world, you forget that those in power are just as human, and just as fallible, as yourself.
I can't see how you can say that we intentionally let Russia degrade to the point at which it is today. No Bush didnt do everything that could have been done to help Russia prevent the problems *which are apparent today.* Hindsight is 20/20. You forget that at the time of Yeltsin's rise to power, Russia was not the chaotic free-for-all it is today, and the situation did not appear as bleak as it does now. I don't remember anyone who thought that the collapse of the USSR meant any more than the reorganization of the USSR into smaller states and the reformation of a command economy into a market economy. The United States did not offer massive aid because it was not asked for, and it did not seem apparent that it was critically necessary. What we did do was to offer our expertise in market economics, increased Russian grain aid, and opened the door to increased Russo-American military cooperation. To say that we deliberately allowed Russia to melt down after the breakup of the USSR fails to acknowledge that no one can predict the future, and also fails to acknowledge everything we have done, IMF money and debt forgiveness and restructuring (no matter how badly the good intentions may have ended up) included.
We have no interest in a chaotic Russia, and I dont see what we would have to gain from intentionally destabilizing a major nuclear power. |
