Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be. — ssu

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO?

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it.

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it.

We also need to remember that British prime minister Boris Johnson is fighting for his political survival after being stabbed in the back by his own party and attacked by the opposition, so the crisis comes in handy. He didn’t order the intelligence services to claim that “Russia poses a threat to Europe and Britain” for nothing. And I bet Biden wouldn’t mind presenting himself as the “savior of America” after not doing much about China and the US economy not doing so well, etc., etc.

Plus don’t forget the many billions of $'s the West could seize if it finds a convenient pretext to freeze Russian assets in London and elsewhere.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”.

If they maintain bases all over the world, there isn't a measurable decrease in power. — Manuel

So post WW2, the British had a global military presence, just like they had for the preceding century, but they were in decline. A global presence does not indicate aggression.

The US is still a great power, but it's in decline because it has neither the will nor the means to maintain its position.

The US has been the world's peace keeper since WW2. As it declines, there will be turmoil.

That's a pretty standard political analysis. I'm kind of confused that you don't understand it.

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this. — frank

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources. It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control.

See Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by A. Sutton

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people.

The result is that America has screwed up much of the world in the same way former empires like Spain, France, and England did that in the past. And the same applies to the EU which sees itself as a reconstructed Roman Empire controlled by financial interests and their political collaborators.

A global presence does not indicate aggression. — frank

You are right.

Britain was destroyed in WWII and the last solo act they tried at Suez in 56', was sternly rebuked by Eisenhower, who was stuck with the war in Korea. Since then, they essentially follow Washington's orders, with very marginal exceptions.

The US has been the world's peace keeper since WW2. As it declines, there will be turmoil. — frank

That's the way it's framed.

It was good for parts of Western Europe (though there were problems here, often glossed over), Australia and Japan.

Latin America, Africa, The Middle East and South East Asia might beg to differ.

I think the US has serious internal troubles it could fix first, instead of getting into everyone's business, especially in this day and age.

I think an alliance with Europe makes sense for certain circumstances. As would an alliance with any other country make sense for other circumstances.

Risking a nuclear war to make a statement is insane to me.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. — Apollodorus

Didn't Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security assurances?

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources. — Apollodorus

The US doesn't need Russia's resources.

It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control. — Apollodorus

No. The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia.

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people. — Apollodorus

The problem with the average non-American is that they take their anti-American angst as a sign of insight, when it's really their own psychic shit projected out like a fucking global comic book. All of you idiots do it.

The US doesn't need Russia's resources. — frank

It isn't a matter of needing them as a nation. It's a matter of some groups who have a lot, wanting more.

The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia. — frank

Not quite. The British and the French had set their sights on Russia long before the revolution of 1917. Don't forget the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 in which the French, British and Americans supplied Japan with war loans, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 before that, etc., etc.

See:

R Smethurst, Takahashi Korekiyo, the Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1907 - Rothschild Archive

G D Best, Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan, 1904–05, American Jewish Historical Quarterly Vol. 61, No. 4 (JUNE, 1972) - JSTOR

But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that?

But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that? — frank

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile:

There was a Western effort to contain Russia and, if possible, to overthrow the czars. Western capitalists held mining, oil, and other interests in Russia and they wanted more as that's what monopolistic capitalists do.

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over.

The liberal capitalists wanted the March revolution, not the October one. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance against Russia, the Russo-Japanese War, the French, British, and American loans to Russia's rival Japan, etc., all paved the way for Kerensky to launch his revolution.

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile: — Apollodorus

I've read a couple of histories of the Russian revolution. One British, one Trotsky's.

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over. — Apollodorus

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening.

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening. — frank

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown". Kerensky's party called itself "Socialist Revolutionary" and there was an earlier revolution in 1905 after Russia lost the war with
Japan.

1905 Russian Revolution - Wikipedia

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc.

You stated the reasons yourself:

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. — frank

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown". — Apollodorus

:grin:

It started as a general strike in honor of International Women's Day. The women goaded the men into joining them. St Petersburg workers went on strike pretty frequently. This one just never ended. There was no functional government after that. The men who stepped forward to lead were not sure how to do it.

Lenin arrived with a plan. That's the Russian Revolution in a nutshell.

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc. — Apollodorus

They created the factories in St Petersburg. So yes, there couldn't have been a general strike without the British and the French (I don't think there were any Americans there). There wouldn't have been any factories.

You stated the reasons yourself:

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. — Apollodorus

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any exploitation of Russia until after 1987.

Would you stop squashing the 20th century into a surrealist graphic novel dammit?

Well, if you want to rewrite history, feel free to do so! :smile:

In the meantime, the events of February/March 1917 are referred to in history books and in the mainstream media as "February/March Revolution" (depending on the calendar used):

The October Revolution along with the February Revolution comprised the Russian Revolution of 1917, and led to the creation of the world’s first socialist state and the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

- March 8, 1917 | Russia’s February Revolution Begins in St. Petersburg - New York Times

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987. — frank

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any explanation of Russia until after 1987. — frank

There is no need for neoliberalism to have existed in 1917 as there was liberalism at the time to do the job. The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go ....

The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go .... — Apollodorus

This is exactly wrong. Nicholas II was in favor of the economic "modernization" that was allowing the British and French to exploit Russia.

These guys were capitalist monopolists but they were liberals. Britain was run by the Liberal Party (which was the party of the capitalist elite) either on its own or in coalition with the Conservatives (the party of the aristocracy). Russian society was seen by both as one of the most backward on the planet. The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept.

The American and British press which was controlled by the liberal capitalists was anti-Russian. There were millions of Russian emigres in New York and London calling for revolution and inciting the locals. There were revolutionary organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom with branches in London and New York, sponsored by liberal capitalists like Schiff, agitating for revolution, etc., etc.

Society of Friends of Russian Freedom - Wikipedia

The anti-czarist movement on both sides of the Atlantic was massive. Public opinion alone put pressure on liberal capitalist leaders to do something.

The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept. — Apollodorus

What's your source for this?

Russia was an absolute monarchy up to the Revolution of 1905, after which a semi-constitutional government was introduced that was merely nominal. The czar still had absolute power. The British and American liberal capitalists saw this as a form of dictatorship compared with their own forms of government.

Obviously, had the czar wanted to introduce reforms, he would have done so of his own accord, and there would have been no revolutions.

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia.

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia. — Apollodorus

:lol: It would make an interesting novel, but you'd need to drop the American involvement. America was nobody in the 1910s. It was the British and the French.

Well, America financed Britain's war effort (via J P Morgan) which in turn financed France and other allies.

In August 1914, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry Davison (1867-1922) travelled to London to arrange a deal with the Bank of England that made his bank the official sponsor of all credits to the British government floated on American markets. J.P. Morgan & Co. underwrote $1.5 billion in war loans to London over the course of the war. As an investment bank, Morgan was not the largest American bank, but it was the most well-connected. It had already floated credit for London once before, during the Boer War in 1900. In the fall of 1914, the US government initially barred Morgan from floating French government loans in New York, forcing Paris to look to the City of London for credits instead. However, by the spring of 1915, France too was funding itself on Wall Street. Once Russia also picked Morgan as the intermediary for its borrowings on the American market, the House of Morgan had become the credit-broker to the entire Entente. For its services to the alliance it obtained an 8.3 percent commission, which netted it over $200 million in profits.

- War Finance - International Encyclopedia of the First World War

America may have been "nobody" because it had no world empire but it had the cash to fund the war. So, it was a "nobody" without whom there would have been no war! :grin:

There's a popular conspiracy theory in Russia, especially prevalent among Putin supporters and often promoted by the state media, that sees the 1917 revolutions, especially the October revolution, as part of a foreign plot. You seem to be saying something similar. The "Society of Friends of Russian Freedom" that you linked to seemed to be a group of liberals and social reformers, which perhaps did not represent a significant portion of the Western elites.

The primary foreign involvement on the side of the Bolsheviks was German, but it was minimal. Germany funded some of the revolutionaries because it was at war with Russia, but they had no influence or control over the movement.

And obviously, once the Civil War really got going, Western capitalist states intervened on the side of the Whites: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

EDIT: I just noticed that in another post you made a distinction between February and October, stating that Western capitalists supported the former but not the latter. Fair enough, my mistake.

Well, how about Russia's security when it is being surrounded by Nelson Rockefeller's NATO? — Apollodorus

Well, having the biggest nuclear arsenal in the World should deter that.

And I never said “everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be”. That’s your own spin that you keep putting on it. — Apollodorus

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO. :smile:

The fact is that oil already stands at a seven-year high of more than $90 a barrel and top banks and oil companies are saying it may soon pass $100.

Obviously, someone is making an awful lot of money from the crisis and it is preposterous to try to deny it. — Apollodorus

And it's preposterous to think that the oil price is what it is because of the Ukraine crisis. There's many other things at play here. And just a while ago the future oil price was negative. In fact, the money is made from those fluctuations.

So, the situation is far more complex than you are alleging, and not everything can be “Russia’s fault”. — Apollodorus

If the West is just hyping a Russian attack, then there is a perfect answer to this: not to do anything. That's how the issue then goes away.

And it's totally possible, perhaps the likeliest outcome of this. The issue just is forgotten, news things capture the focus of the media and life goes on as it has.

I don't think Putin is going to be invading Ukraine, this is a geopolitical chess move, many reasonable theories have been circulated but nobody can know for sure. Ukraine seems like a political hostage, the message is clear that Ukraine will not be allowed to join EU or NATO and maybe Putin will try some repeat of Crimea but there will not be a full-scale invasion. The realism of Putin's demands seem irrelevant tbh, it doesn't matter if the West agrees to block Ukraine from joining NATO, the West isn't going to let Ukraine join NATO when Russia is acting this way. Whether Putin actually cares about any of that, or whether this is something to do with his domestic situation or his legacy, I dunno but does it really matter if the West says no to Russia's demands? Putin may just be making it obvious to his neighbours that these ambitions of EU or NATO membership will be blocked and "get used to it".

Putin wants Western reaction, put on a big show, everything is about Putin, Ukraine knows its place and now back to normal.

There is no greater threat to Russia as a state and Putin as a leader than an actual, large-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine. The war with Afghanistan led to the demise of the USSR, Ukraine would be worse, Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not yearning to join mother Russia, there would be insurgency and terrorism, it is not a worthwhile risk to take. No way Putin tries it.

I just noticed that in another post you made a distinction between February and October, stating that Western capitalists supported the former but not the latter. — jamalrob

Correct. IMO it is a very important distinction to make which, unfortunately, a lot of people fail to do.

Anyway, organizations like the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom (SFRF) did not necessarily represent Western elites. They may have simply wanted to free Russia from the czars, which was the main thing.

However, first, this shows that there was an anti-czarist movement in London and New York, where many Russian emigres had settled (and where organizations like SFRF were headquartered).

Second, it shows that anti-czarist organizations existed, which Anglo-American elites could use to influence events in Russia and facilitate the overthrow of the regime, thus serving a double purpose: (1) enforcing economic and social change that was demanded not only by Russian emigres but by the general public in England and America, and (2) opening up Russia to unlimited development by Anglo-American capitalists.

Socialism was becoming increasingly popular in the West and anti-czarist agitation in London and New York also threatened to become a destabilizing factor domestically. Just think of thousands of foreign extremists, with links to armed groups, agitating in your own country at a time when police forces were neither particularly efficient nor very numerous. After all, the British already had India and Ireland on their plate. So it does make sense that Anglo-American elites wanted to solve the Russian problem sooner rather than later.

It is obvious that Britain and America were happy with Kerensky as they provided him with loans after the February revolution. In fact, there was no other alternative to czarism as no large or organized centrist opposition existed. So this point ought to be beyond dispute.

The confusion arises from the November revolution led by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, which was backed by Germany in an attempt to take Russia out of the war.

But the confusion is easily dispelled if we consider that there were two rival revolutionary factions in Russia: (1) the more moderate Socialist Revolutionaries led by Kerensky and (2) the radical Social Democrats (later renamed “communists”) led by Lenin and his clique.

The first group was supported by the Allies, the second was supported by Germany. Lenin did take Russia out of the war as his German backers wanted, but America joined the war instead, and that sealed Germany’s fate.

In any case, historical evidence suggests that there was some foreign involvement in bringing about the two revolutions. This does NOT mean that Western powers “controlled” anything. Only that they supported the groups that played a key role in the overthrow of the czars.

In fact, the events of February and November 1917 were not even proper revolutions like those of, say, France or America. In the first place, because the vast majority of the population was not interested in revolution and did not participate in the events. And second, because the February event was more like a breakdown in administration and the November one was more like a coup.

But it is wrong to say that foreign powers had no preference for this or the other revolutionary group or that they were not involved, for example, by providing financial assistance.

The West intervened on the side of the counterrevolution only after Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin had seized power and it had become clear that things were not working out in favor of the liberal elites in the West.

However, Lenin agreed to a compromise by introducing state capitalism (in collaboration with Western industrialists) as the means of achieving socialism, which rendered Western intervention unnecessary. Some foreigners did lose their investments in Russia, but on the whole, the situation was not entirely unfavorable to leading Western capitalists like Ford Motors.

Unfortunately, Lenin died (possibly after being poisoned) in 1924 and Stalin who was basically a gangster and train-robber became Russia’s sole dictator.

In any case, historical evidence suggests that there was some foreign involvement in bringing about the two revolutions. This does NOT mean that Western powers “controlled” anything. Only that they supported the groups that played a key role in the overthrow of the czars. — Apollodorus

This is quite reasonable, although I don't think that foreign involvement was decisive in bringing about the events. I think it would have happened anyway, under the political and social circumstances.

Otherwise, I would probably dispute your characterization of the revolutions, but I don't want to get into it here. Basically I don't have any huge disagreement with the main thrust of your post. Originally, I thought I was seeing merely the influence of Russian state propaganda about the revolution as foreign plot, but maybe your view is more subtle.

In fact, the events of February and November 1917 — Apollodorus

I'm being a bit pedantic here, but ... if you're going to apply the Gregorian calendar to the October revolution, then to be consistent you should call the earlier one the March revolution.

But yet you do talk about Rockefeller's NATO — ssu

Why would I not talk about "Rockefeller's NATO" when the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), all were established at the suggestion of Nelson Rockefeller?

And I never said that it is "only" oil and banking interests. It it you who is implying that they have nothing to do with anything. As if industry and finance played no role in the economy and economic interests played no role in foreign (and domestic) policy.

Well, people do sometimes tend to jump to conclusions. The fact is I've got absolutely no connections with Russia and as I have pointed out in other discussions, I actually disagree with many of Putin's foreign policies, such as collaboration with anti-Western regimes like Turkey.

Yes, the 1917 events in Russia might have happened anyway "as a result of the political and social circumstances", as you say. But they wouldn't necessarily have happened the way they did. For example, it may be argued that without German support, Lenin's group wouldn't have seized power.

Another thing is that historical research is a very slow process and for new evidence or interpretations of evidence to find their way into mainstream opinion can take many years. As a result, text books published decades ago are not always entirely up to date and this may lead to new data being dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

But I agree that this is beyond the scope of this thread .... :smile:

As a result, text books published decades ago are not always entirely up to date and this may lead to new data being dismissed as "conspiracy theory". — Apollodorus

Yes, but even among the newer books there's a big range in the interpretation of the new information, especially with regard to the Lenin-as-German-agent idea.

If I remember correctly, you were of the view that NATO enlargement, just as EU enlargement has been driven by the motives Rockefeller and similar. The issue I just point out is that one should add to that the actual countries joining NATO or EU have had their own motivations for joining in. Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US?