![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
It took America the better part of a decade and the loss of over 3,000 American lives to realize we were at war with Al-Qaeda and radical Islam. Now we are coming face-to-face with the reality that we are in a Cold War with Russia.
America believed, somewhat naively, that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union meant the end of the Cold War. We didn't understand that the political system failed in Russia because of the failure of the economic system, but that the people themselves had no experience with Western ways, and the old communist aristocracy was still very much in place. Today Russia is governed by an oligarchy of murdering thugs bent on world power; a refreshing change from the old oligarchy of murdering thugs bent on world power!
We can argue over who lost what, but the reality is that America, exuberant over the demise of the U.S.S.R., decided "mission accomplished" and turned our attention to such critical matters as who was fellating Bill and how our 401K's were doing. Russia under Boris Yeltsin was in serious need of guidance, but the American government, led by a president who did not want any trouble on his watch and a Secretary of State who believed that it was bad that America was the lone Superpower, allowed matters to deteriorate under the bottle-sick Yeltsin.
And that's how the KGB came to take power in Russia; Comrade Putin and his dancing teeth were the only ones capable of maintaining order.
Recently, former Cold Warrior Patrick J. Buchanan penned an op-ed (one of several, actually) bemoaning America's actions in "provoking" another Cold War. Buchanan seems to believe that the "neocons" have acted to provoke the Russians by expanding NATO and seeking to deploy an ABM system in Poland.
One question to Mr. Buchanan: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Let me remind everyone that former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev was desperate to stop the American development of a missile defense system.
From Der Spiegel:
Gorbachev before the Politburo
Gorbachev: We have to make concessions on the medium-range missiles. We must do something in Reykjavik if we hope to make any headway. The US wants the negotiating machinery to run dry, but the arms race is overloading our economy. We need a breakthrough.
Gromyko: We cannot just flip-flop 180 degrees. But the deployment of the SS-20 was a major error in our European policy.
Gorbachev: We can no longer treat our security from a purely arithmetical standpoint. If they force a second arms race on us, we will be finished. The loss of our submarine (a Soviet nuclear submarine had just sunk off the Bermuda Islands) has revealed to everyone the condition we are in. And we are now supposed to panic and shout: "We are falling behind, let us rearm?"
What he sought at Reykjavik was not forthcoming, and he famously conceded to his aids "we are finished."
Well, the Soviet Union was finished, but Russia was not, and the new regime never removed the demand that the U.S. not deploy missile defense.
So Buchanan's panic-stricken claim that the deployment of an ABM system in Poland is somehow forcing the Russians to put Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad is somewhat dubious. It also begs the question: just where would the Russians be putting those missiles? We have been planning for decades on deploying this system — or something like it. The Russians have been threatening us with this action for decades in response.
Whether we realize it or not, America is in a Cold War. We may think the Cold War ended with the breakup of the U.S.S.R., but any reading of Russian newspapers should disabuse us of that notion. It would be grossly irresponsible NOT to deploy the ABM system in Poland given the current chilly international climate.
Of course, Barack Obama plans http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297645696465868 deep cuts in America's nuclear arsenal as well as our missile defense system. http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
According to Missilethreat.com, Obama said in a speech before a group called Caucus4Priorities:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems . . .
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert . . .
How does Obama — or Buchanan, for that matter — think we can achieve this Détente with Russia? We aren't the ones building new nuclear weapons, after all! This is unilateral disarmament, meaning we are relinquishing any hold we may have over them.
But it gets worse; it has recently come to light that our nuclear arsenal is decrepit, and in serious need of upgrading. According to this piece in the Wall Street Journal:
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear weapons program has suffered from neglect. Warheads are old. There's been no new warhead design since the 1980s, and the last time one was tested was 1992, when the U.S. unilaterally stopped testing. Gen. Chilton, who heads U.S. Strategic Command, has been sounding the alarm, as has Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So far few seem to be listening.
The U.S. is alone among the five declared nuclear nations in not modernizing its arsenal. The U.K. and France are both doing so. Ditto China and Russia. "We're the only ones who aren't," Gen. Chilton says. Congress has refused to fund the Department of Energy's Reliable Replacement Warhead program beyond the concept stage and this year it cut funding even for that.
and furthermore:
Gen. Chilton pulls out a prop to illustrate his point: a glass bulb about two inches high. "This is a component of a V-61" nuclear warhead, he says. It was in "one of our gravity weapons" — a weapon from the 1950s and '60s that is still in the U.S. arsenal. He pauses to look around the Journal's conference table. "I remember what these things were for. I bet you don't. It's a vacuum tube. My father used to take these out of the television set in the 1950s and '60s down to the local supermarket to test them and replace them."
So, we are still using VACUUM TUBES in many of our weapons systems!
Meanwhile, the Russians have been steadily building a state-of-the-art nuclear stockpile, benefiting from the money they saved by not having to pay to decommission the old Soviet arsenal, and they have big plans for the future. They have been able to do so in part because of a Clinton-era policy funding the Russian Nuclear Cities.
According to Kenneth Timmerman in this 1999 article in the American Spectator:
Despite the collapse of the Russian economy, the Russian government continues to develop new nuclear submarines and new missiles. Russia's latest missile, the Topol-M (SS-27), went into service last December. According to Yuri Solomonom, general constructor at the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology, which designed it, the SS-27 was conceived to "effectively penetrate" the antimissile systems "of any state," and could be converted to a multiple warhead missile if Russia discards START II. It is the only strategic missile in the world — including the U.S. — that has a maneuverable nuclear re-entry vehicle to allow it to defeat anti-ballistic interceptors.
The SS-27 is not the only troubling nuclear weapons project that appears to have taken priority over the Russian economy. Since 1991, the Russians have pumped more than $6 billion into building a gigantic underground military complex, designed to withstand a direct nuclear blast, at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. "The Russians have refused to provide any credible explanation for the purpose of this site," says Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), who claims to have raised Yamantau at every meeting he has had with the Russian government over the past four years. The underground complex is so big the Russians had to build two entire, 60,000-person cities, known as Beloretsk 15&16, just to support the workers building it down below. Work at Yamantau continues day and night, even now. "This is a project that is so secret that only the upper levels of the Russian government know about it," Weldon said. "It is extremely destabilizing. It means that they are thinking about having a successful first strike capability." Theories abound as to what the site might house — a secret nuclear weapons production plant, an ABM site, a giant ground-based laser, or another directed-energy weapon. Even the CIA doesn't know for sure. The reinforced underground bunkers take up 400 square miles, "an area as large as Washington, D.C. inside the Beltway," Weldon said.
Where do the Russians get all the money for such mega-projects? One source is clear: the U.S. taxpayer. Since 1993, the Clinton administration's misguided nonproliferation programs have pumped more than $2.5 billion into Russia's military-industrial sector. Now, lots more is on the way.
So, the Russians have been aggressively pursuing a powerful nuclear arsenal when they had no enemy. They've also been pursuing new nuclear submarines, capable of attacking from sea in addition to testing new ballistic missiles. Who, pray tell, are they building these weapons to threaten?
Those weapons are not intended to stop a rogue nuke or terrorist organization. Oh, and the Russians were doing this BEFORE George W. Bush and the Neocons came to power.
Furthermore, the Russian invasion of Georgia was clearly planned well in advance and was intended to illustrate Russia's ability to project power. That the Russians provoked Georgia into action to justify an invasion seems likely and claims of Georgian atrocities were greatly exaggerated — as even the Daily Kos admits.
Russia has been successful where the Soviet Union was not because of the wealth gained from control of energy, and Putin's ambition had been to use energy to dominate Europe. His "successor" President Medvedev has not changed this plan, and has even threatened to annex a large swath of the Arctic in the quest for energy dominance. Russia has already tried to strangle Ukraine via a boycott of natural gas and has threatened to do likewise to Belarus. The invasion of Georgia was largely propelled by Russian hegemonic energy ambitions; the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan gas pipeline through Georgia bypassed both Russia and Iran, and made it impossible for Russia to strangle her Western neighbors. During the war, Russia bombed the pipeline in several places to close it.
Russia has likely aided Syria in disposing of Iraqi WMD`s, (does anyone remember the Soviet special forces engineers going into the Bekaa Valley outside of U.N. jurisdiction during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon recently?). They have helped to arm Iran, given them nuclear material, and have been conducting joint naval exercises in the Caribbean with Venezuela. They have undermined our policies worldwide with glee.
Does anybody seriously doubt we are in a Cold War?
It took America the better part of a decade and the loss of over 3,000 American lives to realize we were at war with Al-Qaeda and radical Islam. THEY always knew themselves to be at war with us. Now we are coming face-to-face with the reality that we are in a Cold War with Russia, yet many refuse to believe this.
We cannot win the War on Terror if the Russians are allowed to knife us in the back. An honest understanding of what they are doing is necessary for any of our policies to work. We cannot wish this away. Our policies must be based on sound reasoning and a clear focus on what we must do.
The key to this is money. The power of the Medvedev/Putin oligarchs comes from their wealth, and that is their Achilles heel. As I pointed out here the drop in oil prices is seriously damaging to Russian adventurism. Couple that with the rapidly declining population and you have a nation held hostage by economic forces. We can manipulate that. Our own economic woes are hurting Russia, as well, since there was a not-inconsiderable investment by Russians in America.
In fact, the collapse of the U.S. housing market has Russia's economy on the skids. Consider this bit of news:
Russian markets fell 17 percent Tuesday, the biggest drop since 1998, bringing market levels to their lowest point since 2005. Gazeta.ru published these illustrative numbers at the moment of the unscheduled early closures of the dollar-denominated MICEX and ruble-denominated RTS stock exchanges: shares of VTB dropped by 32.5%, Sberbank (the largest bank by deposits in Russia) 20.9%, FSK 27.6%, Transneft 24.1%, Tatneft 15%, Lukoil 13.5%, Norilsk Nickel 8.2%, Severstal 8.7%, Gazpromneft 8.2%, etc.
Wednesday brought some clarity when Russia's Central Bank announced that, starting on September 18, the rates of the minimum obligation reserves for credit organizations dealing with private parties (in rubles) will be lowered by 4 percent, from 5.5% to 1.5%, while for obligations of non-residential banks (in rubles and foreign currencies) the rates will drop from 8.5% to 4.5%, and for all other obligations, from 6% to 2%. Later, starting in 2009, these rates will be slowly increased.
It is clear that the invasion of Georgia helped precipitate this. According to the piece in Russiablog:
No news agency in Russia directly linked the market failure to the war in Georgia, despite the fact that a huge outflow of foreign capital followed the recent rise of international tensions in the Caucuses. The usually anti-government newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets [Moscow Komsomol - not to be confused with the popular tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda - RB] published a short front page article titled "USA is Satisfied with the Failure of the Russian Market and Withdrawal of the Capital from Russia." The MK mocked William Burns, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, for saying that Russian markets were paying for the "unwise decision of the Russian government to invade Georgia." According to Burns, in part due to the war in Georgia, the Russian stock markets lost a third of their value. However, the Russian stock market began its decline well before the war started in August, and was already showing signs of volatility even as global oil prices reached unprecedented levels in July 2008.
Most Russian media seem to regard the market failure as a combined result of the financial crisis in America and controversial statements of the Russian government regarding metallurgic companies and oil industry tax cuts — not the war. In the United States the subject of Russia's market collapse was not much in the news at all, buried under the flood of news from a closely contested presidential election and Wall Street's own problems.
So, we CAN use economic leverage to move Russia. Deploying an ABM system in Poland is both necessary and prudent, as is expanding NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. If the Russians scream about a new cold war, it is immaterial; their behavior legitimatizes our response. They will continue to saber-rattle (and wield that saber) as long as they have the ability to do so. Real change in Russia will not come from Détente, despite what Pat Buchanan believes. Economic collapse forced change in the past, and it can be used to force change again. Russia will continue to threaten us as long as the Putin cabal are in power. We can drive them out by doing what we have been doing. Their power is based on their personal control of wealth, and if that wealth should be taken away they will be forced out-or at least forced to act more civilized.
This time, let`s do it right!
Timothy
You sound like Chicken Little to me. Some are still trying to keep Bush Derangement Syndrome alive. It seems you are moving on to Putin Derangement Syndrome.
The Russian people have more in common with Americans than just about anybody in the world, except maybe the Scots, and it should be our goal to make them allies in the war on Islamists.
[...] have a piece on the new Cold War with Russia today at Intellectual [...]
"We can drive them out by doing what we're doing."
Looks like people like you have driven yourselves out of power by doing what you've been doing for the past two administrations.
So. . . economic collapse in Russia is a good thing, yes? Total collapse in Iraq has been just great, right? You have a poor grasp on Russia-US relations in the 1990s. Clinton did almost everything possible to prop up Boris, including helping destroy the communists in October, 1993, (Yeltsin's team used the US Ambassador's residence in Moscow as a headquarters before sending tanks to fire at Russia's democratically elected Parliament) and again in June 1996 (providing election campaign expertise and ignoring violations.)
How does Russia exactly threaten us exactly? It doesn't at all, at the moment. Putting US anti-missile defense systems in Europe will only entrench Putin further, justifying more spending on the military.
The Russians (and the rest of the world) have a right to be wary of Americans with views like yours.
Ivan,
You said "… it should be our goal to make them allies in the war on Islamists."
Didn't we try that once and end up conceding half of Europe to the Soviets?
Bob
It makes as much sense to talk about present day Germans as Nazis as it does to speak of Russians as Soviets.
Ivan,
You and I have had some good discussions, so I hope you will take this in the right spirit.
Hogwash!
I realize you are a bit sensitive with regard to Russia and Russians but saying “The Russian people have more in common with Americans than just about anybody in the world” and “… as much sense to talk about present day Germans as Nazis as it does to speak of Russians as Soviets ”. Oh, Please! Would you believe that if I said the Chinese have more in common with us than anyone because they are ‘natural capitalists’ or Australian-aboriginals because they are ‘fiercely independent’, or Israelis because both have a ‘comparable worldview’. Germany was militarily defeated and dragged through the mud for its atrocities. That never happened to Russia. Soviet-Russia was allowed to stalk quietly off into history, never having had to atone or apologize for its atrocities and aggressions. Germany took its mistakes to heart and resolved never to repeat them. Russia hasn't and refuses to acknowledge any but economic miscalculations. Yes, Russia did allow foreigners into its archives, but hasn't exactly busted its butt helping uncover 'war crimes' or 'crimes against humanity' and is even now in the process of closing its books.
Okay, let’s explore your assertion of commonality. Not wishing to pontificate from ignorance I did my usual homework via the Internet, mostly referencing Russian self-descriptions, to see how well your assertion of commonality bears up. I found U.S. State Department guidance to diplomats, Heritage Foundation analyses, a businessman’s guide to negotiating with Russians, Pravda, Johnson’s Russia List, Travel-Russia, a site aiding American boys in hot pursuit of Russian girls, and two Russian-English blogs. Here’s what I found:
Some highly un-American but typically Russian traits:
– rule-breakers (Americans, despite our protestations to the contrary, are conformists; it’s not for nothing we coined the term PC); Russians, while conforming outwardly, try to be non-conformists in myriad small ways (run traffic lights, thumb noses at safety regulations, take a snort on duty, &c)
– indifferent (less finicky) about a great many things that make Americans squirm (dirty streets, dirty socks, not saving or investing, the bullying of others by their government, other people’s opinions, appearance, posture, &c)
– hubris regarding Russia’s importance (okay, may be some commonality on this one)
– generous to a fault, but with a catch; Russians expect a quid pro quo and get pissed by failures to reciprocate; so if a Russian offers you his kid sister for those cold Moscow nights, you better cough up that prized Rolex
– insular (very friendly on surface, but don’t try to get too close)
– suspicious (don’t pry, you just could be KGB after all)
– righteously greedy (i.e., aggressively liberate foreigners (especially Americans) of our ill-gotten wealth because long conditioned by communists to regard us as ‘evil capitalists’ and our wallets, therefore, as legitimate plunder); even newly-rich, allegedly cosmopolitan Russians practice this minor piracy
– unvaryingly and correctly polite, especially the young toward the elderly (when is the last time you saw an American offer his seat on a bus; for that matter, when is the last time you were on a bus!); certain kinds of public rudeness will get you in trouble and many a Russian relishes the opportunity to lecture others on the perils of impropriety (ne kulturny! Nyet?)
– rude, especially the elderly toward the young (have no idea what goes on here, because every Russian seems devoted to his/her particular babushka but regards yours an alter kochër), apparently sweet old Russian grannies are renown for stabbing their way to the best seat on the bus
– sexual chauvinists; men still pick up the tab and women want to stay home after marriage cranking out babies (way behind the times!); well, maybe not the stay-at-home part, but definitely into having babies; most American women I know want no more than one or two babies and not a high priority
– political chauvinists; Russia is best, everyone else should get in line and grovel
– The consensus seems to be, Russians can be cold and rude initially, but warm up to strangers and friendly once they get to know and trust you.
– heavy drinkers (I don’t care how many beers you can down in an evening, no way you want to get into a drinking contest with one of these prodigies – and don’t be suckered she says she only drinks ‘tea’. Russians like something more than just heat in their tea to take the edge of those long subzero nights); I’ve noted a couple of posters who complained against the stereotyping of Russians as drunkards (you?) However, I also seem to remember a number of articles coming out of Russia and the Soviet Union around the time of the collapse and soon after verifying alcohol was and remains a serious social problem inside Russia, contributing to things like marital breakups, production losses, lethargy and indifference, &c. We can attribute part of that to a failing political system with its massive dependencies, but it also long predates the Soviets as a Russian trait of which both Tsarist Russia and Russians émigrés are famous.
– volcanic roughnecks (aka, hooligans) love to mix it up far more than Americans; quick to anger, quick to forget; erupts into more than usual number of injuries and fatalities; our Irish and Italian neighborhoods used to be like that, but no more and even the source countries have settled down
– mystical/spiritual/superstitious – how many times have we debated American secularism; well, it doesn’t seem to bother former atheists from the ex-atheist paradise
– tough negotiators, will probe for weakness and exploit every one of them; verbal (and sometimes physical) battering; imagine an American businessman intimidating clients and suppliers this way. Heck, we’re even helpful tto the competition. Russian negotiators respect strength and despise weakness; also far more patient than Americans in reaching agreements (willing to walk away from a deal), cagey and unwilling to agree on deliverables or dates; can be deal breakers – no such thing as a ‘final agreement, whereas Americans are sticklers for ‘a deal is a deal’ that is non-‘re’negotiable; Reagan understood all this and used it at Reykjavik
So far, more dissimilar than similar, don’t you agree? I promise you I was as inclusive as the sources were, but your Russians keep throwing up these differences; not I (though the way they said it made it sound more like stuff we should relate to, as in ‘Isn’t this how everybody does it?’ Uh, like no, not really, dude).
Among European hoteliers, it seems, Russians compare unfavorably. Among the reasons given: “Russian tourists were often aggressive and noisy and preferred to stay in their hotels all day and all night long.” This was from a survey I read while doing research in Pravda for my ‘Moscow Update’ article, but could not locate again but kept with my notes.
A young Russian calling himself Kenga (post #26 @ http://www.waytorussia.com/TalkLounge/conversation5990-0.html ) says part of the dilemma in defining modern-Russia and Russians stems from the eradication of Russia’s past by the Soviets, artificially disconnecting them from a past that, in critical ways, can’t be resurrected. It is one thing to learn the past you thought you knew was a fake, quite another to unlearn all the cultural baggage that went with it and have nothing else to give you bearings. You have been taught all your life to embrace socialism because capitalism kept your great-grandparents dirt poor and subservient, only to learn the opposite was true; that it was a feudalism not greatly different from the socialism you worshipped all your life (and still believe despite this newfound knowledge and determination to think differently); and that capitalism was just starting to free them of it when they were sold the Bolshevik bill of goods. How is that like the American experience of our selves in a historical context? How is it different?
Clearly, it is alike in that our own revisionists are trying to do it to us. It is different in that they have yet to succeed in hoodwinking a whole people, and there are enough of us still kicking and railing against the trend that it hasn’t triumphed. Even the wobbliest, socialism-worshipping liberal still has a past he can’t quite duck and often finds him/herself defending. Despite the best efforts of secularists, multiculturalists, and socialists to convince us of a past in which the framers were vile, corrupt, racist bunglers, or (alternatively) that they aimed for socialism from the start, the story of our founding and monumental advancements on the human condition manage to shine through – informing the wobbly of a glorious, promising past of which he/she is an unlikely product. The American socialist can’t quite escape his freedom-loving, enterprise-embracing, rugged-individualist past. Meanwhile, the Russian ex-socialist neo-capitalist is struggling to put together any sort of past he/she can relate to in a radically altered reality.
Perhaps, the best measure of any culture (character) is how it holds up under stress. Recent behavior of Russian soldiers in Georgia has not been greatly altered by the change in regimes (see http://www.russianaggression.org/2008/08/sos-russians-resort-to-heavy-violence.html ) it seems. Nor is this an isolated case (see http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/36/grozny.html ). Now, before someone accuses me of a pro-American bias, have a look at the freely recounted stories of American and Russian soldiers (http://www.soldiertestimony.org/wordpress/?cat=25). Note the qualitative differences in the actions, reluctance, and remorse of each. I am not making a value judgment, only noting a very real difference in Russian versus American attitudes to a common situation. This is close to the difference in attitudes we had in WWII (Russian army raping, pillaging, and massacring enemy and friendly alike) and Vietnam (Russian advisors encouraging Vietnamese savagery). Atrocities happened on our side too; but, where the reaction of the Russian leadership has been first cover it up, vanish the offender, and only then blow it off as nobody else’s business, American leaders eventually (if not immediately) own up and publicly punish the offender. The effect this has on American soldiers has been to generally reinforce moral turpitude in the field minimizing this kind of behavior from happening, whereas the effect on Russian soldiers has been to harden them against and blame civilians for what happens to comrades (only know the guy disappeared, never why). This is failure of leadership, but its repetition over several generations and conflicts tells us the failure is cultural as much as individual (Okay, maybe a little of my bias did slip in here, but I just happen to think that way and not much I can do about it). We may be able to comprehend this young Russian soldier's attitude (perhaps even empathize a little), but we can't and won't emulate or support it; and that defines a world of difference.
A person’s character is intertwined in some degree with his nation’s culture. Some of us feel this strongly, and others less. But, all have it in some degree and are subject to its dictates. An American and a Russian will regard the events in Georgia very differently, and that can be explained away as vested interests. But, these same two will also view lax Sub-Saharan sexual mores or Indonesian corruption (where neither has much at stake) very differently; and that is purely cultural.
So, too, two governments and their reactions and manipulations, half a world apart, are very different. Russian attitudes toward ‘their sphere and interests’ are very different and on a collision course with our own. Russian interests in sustaining their gas & oil boom are guaranteed to conflict with our need to nullify terrorist activities and, conversely, our anti-terrorism is playing havoc with Russian designs in the –stans. So, no, I don’t see the Russians being much of a help in defeating terrorism; though I will take what help I can from them so long as it doesn’t compromise our own integrity.
What all this adds up to is Russians aren’t at all like us (though they may be a little more like you individually because of a genuine affinity), they just don’t have the necessary equipment to think or be like us anymore than we have the necessary equipment to be or think like them. Even first- or second-generation Russian-Americans can’t make this claim because the reference points just won’t hold us in place longer than it takes to feel momentary connections (e.g., share jokes, agree on issues, forgive insults, anticipate reactions). We like to think we understand the ‘old country’ or the ‘created ethnic-homeland’ we’ve never really been a part of, but, every time we think that, ‘they’ do something totally outside our frame of reference; and that’s when we know it just doesn’t add up the same.
I understand your feelings toward your ‘rodina’ (your Russian name is a dead give away). Yours are not unlike my own feelings toward Israel. When Israel is attacked, I feel a stab in my heart; when threatened, a cold anger. And, those few times Israel has been the aggressor I want to leap to her defense as you do; convinced the allegations must be false. Russia is crying out it is they who are the one offended, and you want to believe them. But, our passion does not legitimize heartfelt presentments as impartial fact. Your situation is more ticklish, as Russia has, too often, been the aggressor, and is behaving very much again like its ‘old’ self. I argue this is not ‘“acting” like its old self’ or, as you would have it, behaving superficially like its old self. It is acting exactly as Russia has always acted in similar situations and totally in character. ‘Soviet’ and ‘Russian’ here are no more than labels for the same country and people doing the same things they have always done. Not all the same things Soviet Russia did or might do, okay, but pretty close; and, once started down that path, do you really think proud-Russia incapable of the same hubris as Soviet-Russia and Tsarist-Russia?
We need to be honest and realistic in our appraisals of these things if we expect others to take our arguments seriously, and disregarded in our opinions if we play fast and loose with the truth. How does covering for Russia disguise what is going on right now? How does this help your Russian friends and relatives recognize their leaders have overstepped and need to back off? Instead of helping by acting as a conduit for how the rest of the world sees them and likely to react, you signal support for further misdeeds. Where Russia is in the right or has transgressed against no one, absolutely defend her. But, don’t go over the precipice along with her. Stand back so you can be a real friend, and not a flatterer.
True Bob, we have many things in common, but what is the right spirit when someone says "Hogwash" to ones comments? You have obviously done some research, from your keyboard, but you started out to find data that proves your anti-Russian position. I, on the contrary have done face-to-face research that has changed my position over a period of 15 or 20 years. You make the mistake of assuming that my nom de plume, here at IC, represents my true ancestry.
I could agree with several of your points and prove many of your points nonsense, but this would require the revelation of more personal information than I can to go into here in a public format. Having visited more than 16 countries outside the USA, including 250 degrees of the globe, I can say that there are good people everywhere and jerks everywhere and it is a mistake to conflate the people of a region with the government of the same. I would be happy to take this debate private, via e-mail, but I’m not sure how to do that here without giving the world my address. Perhaps Mr. Birdnow could connect us. It seems that authors have access to the e-mail of commenters.
Ivan,
First, mine isn’t an ‘anti-Russian position’, neither is it pro-Russian. I had great hopes for Russia after the Soviets folded, and I have watched with concern for ordinary Russians the return of authoritarian policies. I also find somethings in the individual Russian character to admire, yet recognize in these same traits an undesirable effect when raised to the level of a state power. I haven’t made my mind up yet Russia’s recent actions rise to the level of a superpower confrontation on the scale of the Cold War (the title of my article asks ‘Wither Russia’, if you recall). However, I do note (along with Birdnow) that Russia is once again flexing its muscle, rapidly rebuilding its military, preemptively staking claim to arctic oil & gas reserves (in disputed waters), playing chicken with us in other people’s backyards, and bullying its neighbors; all of which puts Russia on a collision course, daring anyone to do something about it, and coming awfully close to the conditions if not the substance of a Cold War. I would like to see Russia ease off from wherever they think they are heading before things come to that. None of us needs another 40+ year, hair-trigger, global standoff; especially not with a bunch of terrorists running around playing both sides against the middle while setting off bombs.
Second, If not an actual Russian-American, it is clear both from your chosen alias and several pro-Russian comments you have some strong affinity with the country (more than is normal for a non-Russian) shaping your view of events. I admit my biases favor America in the main, Israel whenever in the right, and everyone else as appropriate, but yours give an unmistakable impression of a Russophile. Are you now denying you think Russians so wonderful they are ‘practically us’? Because, that’s the impression you gave. From things you have said, I wouldn’t suspect you of making the multiculturalist ‘we are no better, they are no worse’ argument for cutting some slack. So, why do that for Russia? I am willing to give Russia some benefit of the doubt, but so far Russia has not been very convincing they were ‘pushed’ into or justified in attacking Georgia, strong-arming Ukraine last winter, Belarus before that, building advanced smart-weapons having no other object than evading defense shields, bullying Poland and Czechoslovakia out of an adequate defense, using oil as a weapon on the OPEC model, bypassing our terrorist containment to do business with state sponsors, and diplomatically and materially aiding our sworn enemies Iraq and Iran. This is your idea of a partner we should trust in our campaign against terror? Why, because they also have terrorist problems?
I don’t have the advantage of face-to-face contact with very many Russians (only a handful of émigrés) and none I can call close, so I have to go by what I can glean from secondary sources. In the effort to be fair, however, I gave the strongest credence to how Russians describe themselves and then favorable secondary sources; so, you can’t exactly complain I stacked the deck. Taking these Russian-on-Russian observations, I dialed them into what we have seen directly of Russian actions and came to what I believe to be a fair but logical conclusion regarding actions and national character. Now, you ask us to ignore the things Russians reveal of themselves, substituting the picture you have of them.
Hogwash comes in two flavors. The kind cynically dished out by phonies, and the kind sincerely dished out by friends. Yours falls in the latter category. I don’t scorn you for it because, sooner or later, we all do it. I have caught myself doing it. It is a very common trap. I merely point out it doesn’t hold water and I am not buying. Nor do I buy the implied ‘more experience in these matters than thou’ argument, because too often experts get lazy and are then proved wrong. A corollary to Murphy’s Law says ‘the village idiot will invariably and immediately find the fatal flaw in the highly-sophisticated contraption experts labored decades to build’ (or some such). I feel like that sometimes, spotting the obvious and exploding other people’s long cherished certainties. A simple fact check then turns into an embarrassment they could easily have avoided. I could have said nothing, but then others would have been swayed by your conviction or exploited you as a conservative caught in the act of unjustifiably defending bullies. Mostly, I like and agree with the things you say, but in this case you went way out on a limb. I hope, as a friend and ally, to bring you back to solid footing.
Ivan,
You said of me "… you started out to find data that proves your anti-Russian position …". No, I started out to test the validity of your assertions. However, I'll concede the order in which I responded perhaps gave you the impression of a poisoned search. Yet, as I told you forthrightly in both my first and second comments, I favored Russian sources over secondary sources; taking Russian self-assessment at face value, and using the secondary sources (how others see Russians) more for confirmation. This, then, represents a 'best case' assessment we can concede Russia. Had I been seeking to take the Russians out, I could have collected far more material and been far more scathing.
Bob
Tim has sent me a personal e-mail. He said he would pass my e-mail onto you. If you write to me I will respond.
I am BTW an ardent supporter of Israel, so we can take that off the table.