From the annals of Soviet decision-making on Afghanistan, 1979. Many people know that the Soviets were in fact remarkably reluctant to intervene in Afghanistan. We had long known that they refused to intervene in March 1979, despite being pressed to do so by the Afghans.
This here comes from September 1979. In case Taraki (who met with Brezhnev) raised the question, Brezhnev was to say that he could not intervene as it would only help "our common enemies" and have "extremely negative consequences" for Afghanistan and the international situation.
Of course, a few days after this conversation Taraki was arrested and strangled in prison as Amin consolidated power. Exactly two months later (in early December 1979), the Soviets decided to intervene after all, killing Amin and staying for 10 years at tremendous cost.
This was despite all their previous well-articulated reservations. We know today that the main reason for this remarkable about-face was Moscow's fear that Amin would do a Sadat on them: swap allegiances and turn to the US, leading to the loss of Soviet influence in Afghanistan.
To read more on this remarkable story, stay tuned for my long-suffering brick-of-a-book on the Cold War. It's coming, it's coming! Lots of great stuff in there. Just taking 10 years to write. 😂
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, I'll do a proper thread on Khrushchev and Robert Frost. What a combination! First of all, although a great admirer of Frost's poetry, I never read his biography, so I don't know what he was doing in Gagra in 1962.
Gagra is a lovely little resort town just south of the Russian border in today's Abkhazia. Unfortunately, it was badly damaged in the civil war in the early 1990s (many of the formerly glorious palaces still stand abandoned, and overgrown with lush vegetation).
In the Soviet timies, Gagra was a summer destination for vacationers who would pack its many sanatoriums and the long beach. Khrushchev's villa was in Pitsunda, just south. He'd spent his vacations there and in fact was overthrown two years later while he was at Pitsunda.
A champion among bad takes on Russia, which starts out by setting Putin up as an "existential threat" to the West. I am glad the author does not propose to nuke Russia outright. On the contrary, there's some sensible noise here about arms control talks. foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/13/bid….
The problem with these rubbish takes is a) they overstate the extent to which Europeans share a view of Russia as an existential threat, and b) they understate shared challenges, including nuclear proliferation, climate change, disease, poverty, corruption etc.
The upside for Putin, of course, is that viewing him as an existential threat to the West feeds into his legitimacy narrative. The downside is that the failure to approach Russia pragmatically will only feed the spiral of confrontation and enable bad policy on both sides.
A thought-provoking piece by @DmitriTrenin on Russia leaving its empire behind: carnegie.ru/commentary/832…. Lots to reflect upon here, and some things potentially to disagree with. I would argue that whether Moscow is leaving its empire behind depends on what we call an "empire."
After all, much of today's Russia is still an empire of a kind: it is not like it has suddenly become an average European nation-state. Is Russia leaving Chechnya behind? Or perhaps Tatarstan? Is Moscow rethinking its relations with the periphery?
Russia learning to live with others in the former Soviet space could be a pointer to post-imperium, or it could be a pointer to scaled-down ambitions. Tsarist Russia "lived" with Britain in Central Asia and Japan in the Far East, much as today's Russia lives with Turkey or China.
Why do so many people care so deeply about whether Putin congratulated Biden? What, are they best buddies? Is there an international law requiring that you congratulate projected winners of US elections? Will it add to Biden's electoral legitimacy to be recognised by Putin?
In any case, why would you expect Russia, which has had a generally nasty relationship with the US for years, to congratulate Biden, who had recently called Russia the main foreign "threat" faced by the United States, and promised tough measures to counter Russia's aggression?
- OMG, Putin had not congratulated Biden - can you believe it?
- Yes, I can believe it, and I am not surprised. In fact, I'd be surprised if Putin went out on a limb to congratulate a candidate where the other candidate is yet to concede or, indeed, peacefully relinquish power.
Well, time to start re-reading what Biden had to say on foreign policy. This here is a must read. foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…. A lot of useful ideas here, for example, focusing on America's domestic problems (proverbial leading by example), and fighting against corruption.
There is positive vibe in comments on climate change, on the Iran deal, and nuclear arms control.
At the same time, there is a lot of old, tired trope that will annoy America's friends around the world. Like these brave proclamations here that will lead to a lot of eye-rolling, e.g. in Europe.
Some people have criticised that I've compared the US election with that in Turkmenistan: let me explain. The OSCE has 57 participating member-states, among them some vile tyrannies. Turkmenistan is probably the worst, which is why I use it for benchmarking.
If you were to take key indicators of democratic elections - from campaign and media environment to campaign finance to voter enfranchisement to election administration, you will see that the US doesn't do too well in these categories. I'd say it's in the bottom 50 percent.
Of course, there are many others that are much worse. Central Asia, Russia, and Belarus are examples. There are others that are much, much better. Having observed elections in Mongolia, I'd say Mongolia is way better across all indicators. Much of Western Europe is way better.