Monterey Conversations: Rethinking the Cold War | Suri | Sarotte | Plokhii

The present often modifies the past. For a few areas of historical inquiry, this is as true as for the history of the Cold War. In this Monterey Conversation, moderated by Jeremi Suri (University of Texas at Austin), Mary Sarotte (Johns Hopkins SAIS) and Serhii Plokhii (Harvard University) talked through the connection between the Cold War and the war in Ukraine, focusing on the history of Ukraine and the history of U.S.-Russian/U.S.-Soviet relations. They discussed the ways in which this conflict is embedded in the history of the Cold War, and how this conflict may cause us to think differently about the Cold War.

[@Trash0815]

Small correction in minute 24, "Wandel durch Handel" (change by trade) is only a colloquial label vor the "Wandel durch Annährung" (change by aproachment) policy, the expectation to fundamentally change the opposing party is not really a set goal in the original formulation which is often mis-characterized in re capitulations nowadays.

[@jonathanedwardgibson]

Russian Aggression brings you all here. . . Riddle me this: if China was to get close, real close, with Mexico via trade and even milspec gear and glad to fill the haciendas with Take Back Alamo until they are shelling Texas for eight years claiming they’ll take it back all the way to Ohio River - well, what would America have done? Our military is expiditionary, tough enough to best up gangs in trucks, but in no way ready for attrition strategies of Russia’s obviously minimal ‘invasion’ force. You demonstrate how America became a Pixel Tiger. The need to invoice quarterly has turned US into an Ammo Dump with Theater Department. This crew we see here wears lipstick and does kick-lines of loyalty. Panetta around to decry the Russian plant of Hunter’s Laptop?

[@tannermurphree8247]

Are you a paid Chinese or Russian troll?

[@yvonneyork1263]

Hoping for a nuanced conversation from these scholars but they have reverted to neocon ideas of empire without the recognition that the US remains the sole imperialist empire fighting for its unipolar dominance and denying any other power a sphere of influence to manage its own civil disputes. Had the Russian Federation and UKR been allowed to negotiate without the interference and prosecution of a proxy war actively by US and UK since at least 2014, there is likelihood that the conflict would not have reached this point. Also noticing the discussion of war crimes on the Russian side only, when there is evidence that is being ignored by MSM of crimes on the UKR side as well. In the absence of formal investigations, not framing them from a cautious legalistic perspective in the fog of war as alleged rather than proven is careless. Disappointed in the lack of rigor here. Note that if the principles of the Nuremberg trials were applied, every post war US American president could be found guilty of war crimes, per Noam Chomsky in his famous statement from the 1990's . The bias of this conversation is evident, without pushback from the moderator. I wish a more nuanced perspective was provided. Am exploring the viewpoints of Anatol Lieven, James Carden, Nicolai N. Petro, Ethan Alexander-Davey, Gordon Hahn and Richard Sakwa.