Re: Digest Number 487

From: Mark Galeotti <hia15_at_KCALIOA4nJGBL6VUmOV9GnAncQR-XsTlqe0c5bVSwj3KQK1UlSya3Q3FXz03srkD-j9o7F>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:08:43 -0000

• In ImmoderateHeroQuest_at_yahoogroups.com, "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_s...> wrote:
  >
  >
  > >Well, by the same token we should have expected British Tommies
  > >there, too. What, Britain's stratgeic interests and capabilities
  > >were different in 1979 than 1879?
  >
  > Actually, yes. India was part of the Commonwealth, but not the
  Empire, by
  > 1979. Britain may have been itching to get back into wog-bashing
  in the NWF,
  > but by 1979 they didn't have the resources (including political
  along with
  > military) to do so.
  

Um, well yes, that was rather my point, although the irony of my comment was sadly lost in the transition to words on a screen! But that's why I went on

> Concidentally, the same was true
> >of the Russians.

I was trained as an historian and still think it the queen of disciplines. I also appreciate that it has a very strong impact on culture, trend and geopolitical assumptions. However, I always get a little worried with statements like

> They have since the time of Peter the Great. A simple regime change
> doesn't seem to have changed *that* aspect of Russian Forign
Policy.

and

> But my point is that expansion of "Russia" into and beyond Central
Asia has
> been a driving force in their foriegn policy for the past 300
years, and is
> unlikely to change (something about leopard and spots).

Might we not feel a little uncomfortable if someone said 'hey, look at the Teutonic Knights, look at Bismarck, look at Hitler -- of _course_ the Germans still want to conquer Eastern Europe'? I would simply counsel against regarding history as such a clear and linear predictor of future policy. A factor, sure, but not always the deciding one -- especially when there is no evidence to support such a historicist line.

All the best

Mark