This is a great summary of the mindset at the time. As another who lived through period, I would add 1 major concern: what's going to happen to all those nukes? Unlike America, Russia had single-man-portable nuclear bombs, tactical nukes carried by infantry and artillery brigades in the 10-20Kt range. I remember a great deal of fear that some of those would fall into 3rd party hands,, some unpaid Russian Colonel deciding one of his arsenal would make a nice $10M retirement package. That it didn't happen is one of the remarkable successes of this period.
Perhaps the reason we didn't see "the door closing" as you put it was that we were too high on Francis Fukuyama's End of History to even consider that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations might be real. Fukuyama stoked our ego, and we went with it. He told us everyone in the world longed for liberal, Western values, so we set out using our military to "free them." No one was more explicit about this than Bush Jr.
Peter Van Buren wrote a book about his time in Iraq (State Dept) called "We Meant Well" which captures this perfectly. We were convinced that under every burka there was a miniskirt-wearing, business-owning, Wellesley College feminist just yearning to break free. That's the depth of Fukuyama's legacy even 20 years later. We were wrong. Fukuyama was wrong. And I think when the history of this period is finally written, when all involved are long dead, Fukuyama will be one of the intellectual villains.
I suspect that, had we applied a Marshall plan to Russia in 1991, we would likely have presumed that under every babuska was also a miniskirt wearing, Wellesley feminist yearning to break free too. And we would have been equally disappointed. Germany was our cultural brother; Japan wanted to to be adopted into the family. Russia is more like a distant cousin.
If you're interested in a history of this time period from the other side, I'd recommend the Demon in Democracy by Legutko, a philosophy professor who helped guide Poland from communism to capitalism in the early 90's as an MP and later became an MEP. His second book isn't as good, but that one's a great counter-perspective on a time period you and I lived through.
As far as Fukuyama. I think his point is more subtle than people give him credit for, and that much of what people blame him for is an oversimplification of his actual ideas. Have you read "The End of History" (the book not the article)? If not you should. I think the idea of a mini-skirt under every burka was surprisingly common.
I read it years ago, but I probably should revisit it. You're right, the "miniskirt under every burka" (or babuska) fantasy was common because we really wanted to believe. Liberal democracy won! Universal human rights won! Locke's Enlightenment won! In that sense, Fukuyama was surfing the zeitgeist instead of directing it, but by giving it intellectual credibility, he certainly prolonged its tenure. And once we realized Huntington might be right, the door to Russia was long since closed.
I think you're correct that the actual time period things could have ben redirected was VERY short, no more than a year or two. for Yeltsin and maybe likely even shorter for Putin.
The link to the article on Russia and nukes is broken. Is this the one you meant: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-world-is-living-through-dangerous-moment-warns-west-not-escalate-2026-10-01/
Thanks for pointing out the problem. It was actually this one:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-issues-nuclear-warning-nato-tensions-rise-baltic-2026-09-30/
Link is fixed in the post.
This is a great summary of the mindset at the time. As another who lived through period, I would add 1 major concern: what's going to happen to all those nukes? Unlike America, Russia had single-man-portable nuclear bombs, tactical nukes carried by infantry and artillery brigades in the 10-20Kt range. I remember a great deal of fear that some of those would fall into 3rd party hands,, some unpaid Russian Colonel deciding one of his arsenal would make a nice $10M retirement package. That it didn't happen is one of the remarkable successes of this period.
Perhaps the reason we didn't see "the door closing" as you put it was that we were too high on Francis Fukuyama's End of History to even consider that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations might be real. Fukuyama stoked our ego, and we went with it. He told us everyone in the world longed for liberal, Western values, so we set out using our military to "free them." No one was more explicit about this than Bush Jr.
Peter Van Buren wrote a book about his time in Iraq (State Dept) called "We Meant Well" which captures this perfectly. We were convinced that under every burka there was a miniskirt-wearing, business-owning, Wellesley College feminist just yearning to break free. That's the depth of Fukuyama's legacy even 20 years later. We were wrong. Fukuyama was wrong. And I think when the history of this period is finally written, when all involved are long dead, Fukuyama will be one of the intellectual villains.
I suspect that, had we applied a Marshall plan to Russia in 1991, we would likely have presumed that under every babuska was also a miniskirt wearing, Wellesley feminist yearning to break free too. And we would have been equally disappointed. Germany was our cultural brother; Japan wanted to to be adopted into the family. Russia is more like a distant cousin.
If you're interested in a history of this time period from the other side, I'd recommend the Demon in Democracy by Legutko, a philosophy professor who helped guide Poland from communism to capitalism in the early 90's as an MP and later became an MEP. His second book isn't as good, but that one's a great counter-perspective on a time period you and I lived through.
I've added it to my list.
As far as Fukuyama. I think his point is more subtle than people give him credit for, and that much of what people blame him for is an oversimplification of his actual ideas. Have you read "The End of History" (the book not the article)? If not you should. I think the idea of a mini-skirt under every burka was surprisingly common.
I read it years ago, but I probably should revisit it. You're right, the "miniskirt under every burka" (or babuska) fantasy was common because we really wanted to believe. Liberal democracy won! Universal human rights won! Locke's Enlightenment won! In that sense, Fukuyama was surfing the zeitgeist instead of directing it, but by giving it intellectual credibility, he certainly prolonged its tenure. And once we realized Huntington might be right, the door to Russia was long since closed.
I think you're correct that the actual time period things could have ben redirected was VERY short, no more than a year or two. for Yeltsin and maybe likely even shorter for Putin.
I like the idea of "patience, carefulness, and skepticism". Maybe you could write more about that sometime.
I’ll see what I can do. It is a rich vein.