Just as with Gorbachev, Kozyrev is the most select product of the later Soviet period. It says something of that period and its spirit that its brightest and most succesful leaders were hopeless politicians who actually believed if not in the system's overt tenets, then in its dearest delusions like pacifism, mutual trust and desintestedness in global affairs (speaking of foreign affairs, though internally they were just as idealistic). Zubok's book is rather telling in this respect.
Well of course. "It was, unawares of Kozyrev, just the same old Soviet theory, except that the absence of contradictions that was supposed to adorn communist regimes, was now transposed to democratic regimes. Kozyrev uses the same “boxes” but just fills them with a different content." I recognize this all the time. The Russians are very much influenced by Bolshevism, by the old Marxist (or supposedly) way of theorizing and just put new word into the box. It shows how important theory is, always. Voltaire once observed this. Everyone needs their theories, in order to coordinate their activities. The Right would have extremely simple ones, and with Russia we always see this tendency to try and be a little more wordy or complicated.
Same applies to Iran. One of the things Islamic Republic diplomats begged for in JCPOA was US visa for families of high ranking officials. Then expected America to recognize them as a regional super power!
There is 0% chance Putin leaves Russia weaker and smaller than in 1999. You are forcing a pattern to appear.
"Russia will be weaker, smaller, and more isolated than it has been in at least 250 years."
I really doubt it. For us in Europe it's a hard fact to aknowlage , but next 50-100yrs belongs to Asia. Guess Russians just going with a flow.
"that “democracies” have a specific “friendly” relations"
One of the problems - there was never much democracy in the 1990s already, in 1996 there was the fake election. Then in 1999.. etc.
Just as with Gorbachev, Kozyrev is the most select product of the later Soviet period. It says something of that period and its spirit that its brightest and most succesful leaders were hopeless politicians who actually believed if not in the system's overt tenets, then in its dearest delusions like pacifism, mutual trust and desintestedness in global affairs (speaking of foreign affairs, though internally they were just as idealistic). Zubok's book is rather telling in this respect.
Well of course. "It was, unawares of Kozyrev, just the same old Soviet theory, except that the absence of contradictions that was supposed to adorn communist regimes, was now transposed to democratic regimes. Kozyrev uses the same “boxes” but just fills them with a different content." I recognize this all the time. The Russians are very much influenced by Bolshevism, by the old Marxist (or supposedly) way of theorizing and just put new word into the box. It shows how important theory is, always. Voltaire once observed this. Everyone needs their theories, in order to coordinate their activities. The Right would have extremely simple ones, and with Russia we always see this tendency to try and be a little more wordy or complicated.
Same applies to Iran. One of the things Islamic Republic diplomats begged for in JCPOA was US visa for families of high ranking officials. Then expected America to recognize them as a regional super power!