"But the point is, Russians started this war. If not for their initial invasion, there would be no French and British intervention, no “charge of the light brigade”, no Florence Nightingale (or rather: a different Florence Nightingale), no battle of Balaclava (meaning we would probably have to invent another word for, you know, a balaclava), etc."
And no "The Trooper" by Iron Maiden - let's not forget.
"Jeffrey Sachs is a controversial economist, whose specialty is helping developing countries to eradicate poverty. Some authors - such as Paul Theroux and Naomi Klein - argue that the countries blessed with Sachs’ help ended up only worse."
I know this note is not about this, but I can't resist recounting a personal anecdote involving this. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to attend Mr Sachs's talk. He talked very critically about "neoliberalism". I raised my hand and asked him a question about the admittedly neoliberal reforms in Poland which he himself was part of - what does he think about these now, does he think they were a mistake? His reply was, in a way, amazing: "oh, the neoliberal stuff wasn't me, it was Balcerowicz all by himself - I wanted Poland to be a social democracy like Scandinavia!".
I had another amazingly shameless exchange with him (about his appearances on Russian war propaganda shows), but that was private so I won't go into details. My honest opinion about him is that the guy isn't just wrong about things; he's dishonest, possibly corrupt and definitely morally bankrupt.
Sooo... if his stance of economics is anything to go by, in a couple of years (once the damage will have already been done), he'll see reason and become a harsh critic of Russian imperialism, simultaneously claiming that he has always been one.
I think that behind pro-Russian voices there is very often an expanded ego -- to say something different from the mainstream is so nice, breaking out of the ordinary, perhaps recalling forgotten names. As I recall Sachs' appearance in the public discussion, it looks like this, like an ego boost.
But what else I wanted -- because I read Figes on Russia. And overall OK, a balanced view, but still, a few things strike me. Well, Figes can't get away from the Russian point of view, that they were invaded and colonized, which sounds ridiculous from the Polish point of view (or the Baltic states). Figes does not see the difference between the Romanovs and the Habsburgs in the conduct of foreign policy, or in the violent aspect of power. I think that as Central and Eastern Europeans we need to be reminded that Russian historical myths are not the only, much less a credible point of view on the past of our part of Europe. Because this war makes the Ukrainian point of view appear, but no longer the Polish, Lithuanian or Estonian one. Meanwhile, we have a historical memory of former Russia, or Moskovia (oh, how Russians are annoyed by the reminder that they became "Russia" in the 18th century).
Since it was an intervention in the internal dynastic crisis, it wasn't really an invasion. And it was not uninvited, False Dmitri literally came to Poland to attend the parliament, calling Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth to intervene on his behalf.
Met Sachs in 1989/90 i Poland when he assisted prof Balcerowicz in his effort to move the country from planned into market economy and admired his advise!
To day am totally dissapointed with his totally false views on Russia and Putin! What has happen to him? Brainwashed by Moscow or went crazy?
He was later advising to Gaidar in Russia, where shock therapy did not go as well as in Poland. Seems it was a peak Sachs' career, he would be later advising to Un etc., but 1991 was a moment when he must have felt like a demigod - transforming America's archenemy on cordial invitation from Kremlin. His recollections of that period are strikingly idealistic (naive?) in tone. What youth is used to, age remembers... After all Putin is as bald as Gorbachev, so maybe he has confused them?
There is amazing 'alternative history' moment in the PM interview, when Sachs says "we could have ended cold war" by removing US bases & forces from Western Germany.
I would gladly watch a TV series about it: let's say it is 1981, and instead of instigating new arms race, US withdraw from Bundesrepublik. In return, Red Army leaves DDR, Poland Czechoslovakia and so on. There's no need for the USSR to invade Afganistan, support North Korea or Cuba. Wind of change blows, white doves carry olive branches through the skies... What a pity this didn't happen!
Only that Russia had Königsberg, which was becoming an increasingly important offensive base, used to threaten its neighbors. The Red Army withdrew from the states, but its base remained, which was a strange exclave of the Russian state.
Russia is trying to encircle Poland now, trapping it into a pincer. They have Kaliningrad and Belarus, and are trying to take Ukraine. If Poland one day decides to attack Kaliningrad, we will be simply protecting our legitimate security interest.
“Germany would not have had the army to invade Poland if not for the Soviet-German military cooperation” - FALSE. There was some cooperation, it was helpful, but not on that level of importance.
I frequently do. Since we are not in a library, I backed up my point with a link to Wikipedia. Of course, it's not super reliable - so I'm holding my breath now, waiting for your refutation, backed up by something better. Please don't make me wait too long!
"...if it wasn’t for the secret military part of the Rapallo treaty of 1922, when Hitler came to power, the German army would be considerably weaker than it was in our continuum."
Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. It seems a little unfair to criticise them for dealing with Weimar Germany, pre-Hitler.
Your point could be much better made with reference to, for example, the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, in which the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with raw materials it was short of, at a time Britain and France were trying to blockade Germany.
"But the point is, Russians started this war. If not for their initial invasion, there would be no French and British intervention, no “charge of the light brigade”, no Florence Nightingale (or rather: a different Florence Nightingale), no battle of Balaclava (meaning we would probably have to invent another word for, you know, a balaclava), etc."
And no "The Trooper" by Iron Maiden - let's not forget.
Sachs isn't only a Putinversteher, but also a Xiversteher: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/apfjc5yg352d554k2ar2wwwkk8ryw9
He's also a friend of the lovely democrats from the UAE: https://theintercept.com/2021/12/29/jeffrey-sachs-uae-happiness/
"Jeffrey Sachs is a controversial economist, whose specialty is helping developing countries to eradicate poverty. Some authors - such as Paul Theroux and Naomi Klein - argue that the countries blessed with Sachs’ help ended up only worse."
I know this note is not about this, but I can't resist recounting a personal anecdote involving this. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to attend Mr Sachs's talk. He talked very critically about "neoliberalism". I raised my hand and asked him a question about the admittedly neoliberal reforms in Poland which he himself was part of - what does he think about these now, does he think they were a mistake? His reply was, in a way, amazing: "oh, the neoliberal stuff wasn't me, it was Balcerowicz all by himself - I wanted Poland to be a social democracy like Scandinavia!".
I had another amazingly shameless exchange with him (about his appearances on Russian war propaganda shows), but that was private so I won't go into details. My honest opinion about him is that the guy isn't just wrong about things; he's dishonest, possibly corrupt and definitely morally bankrupt.
Sooo... if his stance of economics is anything to go by, in a couple of years (once the damage will have already been done), he'll see reason and become a harsh critic of Russian imperialism, simultaneously claiming that he has always been one.
I think that very much depends on who will stroke his ego the most and donate the most to his NGOs.
I think that behind pro-Russian voices there is very often an expanded ego -- to say something different from the mainstream is so nice, breaking out of the ordinary, perhaps recalling forgotten names. As I recall Sachs' appearance in the public discussion, it looks like this, like an ego boost.
But what else I wanted -- because I read Figes on Russia. And overall OK, a balanced view, but still, a few things strike me. Well, Figes can't get away from the Russian point of view, that they were invaded and colonized, which sounds ridiculous from the Polish point of view (or the Baltic states). Figes does not see the difference between the Romanovs and the Habsburgs in the conduct of foreign policy, or in the violent aspect of power. I think that as Central and Eastern Europeans we need to be reminded that Russian historical myths are not the only, much less a credible point of view on the past of our part of Europe. Because this war makes the Ukrainian point of view appear, but no longer the Polish, Lithuanian or Estonian one. Meanwhile, we have a historical memory of former Russia, or Moskovia (oh, how Russians are annoyed by the reminder that they became "Russia" in the 18th century).
Well. The only truly "uninvited" invasion of Moscow was by us, in the early 17th century :)
Since it was an intervention in the internal dynastic crisis, it wasn't really an invasion. And it was not uninvited, False Dmitri literally came to Poland to attend the parliament, calling Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth to intervene on his behalf.
Not sure how to phrase it, but your list of successful invasions of Russia is a little outdated :D
Met Sachs in 1989/90 i Poland when he assisted prof Balcerowicz in his effort to move the country from planned into market economy and admired his advise!
To day am totally dissapointed with his totally false views on Russia and Putin! What has happen to him? Brainwashed by Moscow or went crazy?
He was later advising to Gaidar in Russia, where shock therapy did not go as well as in Poland. Seems it was a peak Sachs' career, he would be later advising to Un etc., but 1991 was a moment when he must have felt like a demigod - transforming America's archenemy on cordial invitation from Kremlin. His recollections of that period are strikingly idealistic (naive?) in tone. What youth is used to, age remembers... After all Putin is as bald as Gorbachev, so maybe he has confused them?
There is amazing 'alternative history' moment in the PM interview, when Sachs says "we could have ended cold war" by removing US bases & forces from Western Germany.
I would gladly watch a TV series about it: let's say it is 1981, and instead of instigating new arms race, US withdraw from Bundesrepublik. In return, Red Army leaves DDR, Poland Czechoslovakia and so on. There's no need for the USSR to invade Afganistan, support North Korea or Cuba. Wind of change blows, white doves carry olive branches through the skies... What a pity this didn't happen!
In return, the Red Army invades the Bundesrepublik.
Only that Russia had Königsberg, which was becoming an increasingly important offensive base, used to threaten its neighbors. The Red Army withdrew from the states, but its base remained, which was a strange exclave of the Russian state.
Russia is trying to encircle Poland now, trapping it into a pincer. They have Kaliningrad and Belarus, and are trying to take Ukraine. If Poland one day decides to attack Kaliningrad, we will be simply protecting our legitimate security interest.
(Yes, that's sarcasm. But not completely.)
I am very seriously thinking that this war needs to end including some kind of Kalingrad demilitarization.
But that is definitely not going to happen.
“Germany would not have had the army to invade Poland if not for the Soviet-German military cooperation” - FALSE. There was some cooperation, it was helpful, but not on that level of importance.
“throughout its history” - well, Poland and France are quite on West, then Prussia and Austria.
But like I said in my note, Russia usually brought it on themselves, for example by invading Turkey. It was never a Western invasion out of the blue.
“making tanks and planes in Soviet factories” - well, not really, go to library, read some books, seriously.
I frequently do. Since we are not in a library, I backed up my point with a link to Wikipedia. Of course, it's not super reliable - so I'm holding my breath now, waiting for your refutation, backed up by something better. Please don't make me wait too long!
BTW, if there is any reason for looking for great, international attack on Russia - Civil War intervention is the thing.
It was a half hearted effort at best. But yes, completely unnecessary.
Generally, for the story critical of Sachs knowledge (low bar to be honest, really low), a complete failure full of errors
And yet you failed to back your words with a single quote.
"...if it wasn’t for the secret military part of the Rapallo treaty of 1922, when Hitler came to power, the German army would be considerably weaker than it was in our continuum."
Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. It seems a little unfair to criticise them for dealing with Weimar Germany, pre-Hitler.
Your point could be much better made with reference to, for example, the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, in which the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with raw materials it was short of, at a time Britain and France were trying to blockade Germany.
Those materials were vital to the German war effort, particularly grain, rubber, manganese and oil, according to "Feeding the German Eagle" by Edward Ericson, summarised in tabular form here: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)#Hitler_breaks_the_Pact) Without them, as the article notes, Germany would've struggled to launch Barbarossa, never mind sustain it.