Current State of US - Russia Relations

 

Current State of US-Russia Relations

My previous post was a quick overview of the history behind US-Russia relations. It was critical in that it challenged generally accepted theories. I engaged some important questions on matters of principle, and presented my perspective on the authenticity of the Cold War, and the relevancy of NATO.

On this post, I analyze the current state of US-Russia relations. I consider the recent rhetoric, from both the academic and political perspectives. I briefly comment on the recent actions taken by both sides, and offer my expectations on the future of their foreign relations.

 

Recent Rhetoric: Academic Perspective.

Some academics describe the current state of Russia’s relations with the West as a “new cold war”.i Among such voices, a notorious example is journalist Edward Lucas, a senior editor at the British magazine The Economist.ii In his book, “The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West”, he presents Russia as an imminent danger the West should not ignore.iii

 

On the preface of the 2014 edition, Mr. Lucas writes, “Vladimir Putin’s background and views heralded repression in Russia and aggression abroad…if we did not do something about him soon…he would do something nasty to us later… those warnings… have proved too cautious…Abroad, Russia has waged war with Georgia, conducted large menacing military exercises against Poland… [and] has, in effect, invaded and occupied part of Ukraine”.iv

 

He presents instances that appear to be strong, fact based accounts detailing murders, international assassinations, political imprisonments, and the use of psychiatry as instrument of torture.v One powerful instance was the tragic death of journalist, Mrs. Anna Politkovskaya, of whom Mr. Lucas writes, “our mutual friend Anna Politkovskaya had just been gunned down in the entrance to her home… She was the foremost critic of the Kremlin’s savagery in crushing the rebels in breakaway Chechnya”.vi He also relates, “a week later Aleksandr Litvinenko…was poisoned with a rare radioactive isotope…his last words directly blamed Mr. Putin for his murder”.vii These cases allegedly evidence the evil deeds he charges upon Mr. Putin.

Mr. Lucas noticeable aberration could be understood as influenced by the ideals of his parents. He confides that he, “grew up in an Oxford academic household deeply committed to fostering freedom of thought behind the Iron Curtain. My father smuggled Plato’s Republic and the Greek Orthodox New Testament into Czechoslovakia”.viii His parents’ ideals had their impact in Mr. Lucas’ sentiments towards the Soviet Union, as he admits, “In the early 80s I campaigned for Poland’s Solidarity trade union”.ix

 

Although the repression, political persecution and international assassinations he claims are based on actual events, Mr. Lucas fails to analyze them within their proper historical context, on a case by case basis. 

Mrs. Politkovskaya’s case is of particular interest here. I consider it a case of misplaced courage. Her criticism of Russia’s handling of the Chechen conflict came within the context of repeated terrorist attacks in diverse parts of Russia, carried out by Chechen separatists. The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis, where 120 innocent hostages lost their lives, is a startling example. It shocked the international community. 

Her criticism of the government’s handling of the Chechen war, in light of the constant terrorist attacks, was considered inappropriate not only by Russian officials, but also by the public. In contrast, Politkovskaya had great reception in the West. Her reporting provided plenty of political munition to Russia’s detractors abroad, fact which was also offensive to many Russians, who considered it unpatriotic propaganda.

I strongly stand against any kind of assassination, however, it is very likely that Mrs. Politkovskaya was murdered by radicalized third parties. Mr. Lucas relates that she was murdered as Mr. Putin celebrated his 54th birthday. He believes the timing of her death was planned as a birthday gift to Mr. Putin.x Her death being a birthday present to Mr. Putin actually exculpates him. It would only blame him as the motive behind the murder.

History shows that Mrs. Politkovskaya’s criticism of the Chechen war was misguided. Chechen rebels overflowed the files and ranks of ISIL. They bombed the Boston Marathon. They hurt a community that embraced them and gave them hope, a home, and education, meaningful work and a great opportunity. Those cases proved that Chechen separatists are savages who deserve nothing less than what Putin delivered them. History backs Putin on this one. His handling of the Chechen conflict was actually correct, even with its many natural deficiencies. 

Urban Terrorism is purposely designed so that you cannot fight it effectively within the legal framework of neither Human Rights or the Geneva Convention. That feature is what makes Terrorism so dreadful a weapon, and so attractive to the soulless perpetrators. Curiously enough, history shows that Terrorism and the Declaration of the Rights of Man share a common origin.xi Like my grandmother, God rests her soul, used to say, “those who made the law, made the trick”.

In addition, the markedly spiced tone of Mr. Lucas raises some red flags. For it is the epitome of incendiary rhetoric. Such speech equates political propaganda. For an example here, Mr. Lucas writes, “...which Russia, militarily weaker but mentally more resolute, has a decisive advantage.”xii This is inflammatory in that it presents a scenario where a weak Russia taunts the North Atlantic alliance, and actually bullies it. Would the U. S. tolerate bullying by Russia, which is now less powerful than the Warsaw Pact? Would it not be embarrassing, if someone publicly called that out? The rhetoric suggests an implicit invitation to aggression against Russia. It implies that because Russia is weaker, the West has the opportunity to take advantage.

Mr. Lucas is a master of mixing shame with fear. For shame and fear he combines masterfully in his next statement, “[the ‘decisive advantage’] encourages over-confidence by the Kremlin, with all the concomitant dangers of miscalculation and escalation”.xiii In other words, the West is better off acting, and acting now. I could paraphrase the two quoted texts together, by saying, “why let a weak guy bully you? Fight him! If you let him continue, things will get worse!”

Denigration flows its downward spiral, as Mr. Lucas hammers Putin on a personal level. Lucas portrays Mr. Putin with derogatory adjectives like “cold” and “sinister”, “nostalgic for the Soviet past” and with “a deep belief in Russia’s historical destiny”.xiv In his biased characterization of Vladimir Putin, Lucas contradicts himself. 

For example, Lucas latter stated that Russians love Putin. This suggests that either his statements about Mr. Putin are incorrect, or that Russians are stupid because they still love Mr. Putin. Even worse, in granting Putin their unwavering support, Russians would share the blame for enabling an alleged criminal. Such generalization criminalizing an entire nation suggests prejudice. It is also counter historical.

Mischief delves into new lows, as Mr. Lucas digs deeper into personal issues, and wanders into Vladimir Putin’s intimate life. He criticizes intimacies of Mr. Putin’s marriage, echoing seemingly unverified rumors of adultery and of the vanishing of Mrs. Putina. Had he done the same thing to other political figures we have heard of, his publisher would have most likely rejected his manuscript as a slandering pile of non-sense no amount of editing could correct.

But Lucas got a free pass, because his book is sheer anti-Russian propaganda. In my book, Rise of the Sadducees, I cite the wise words of Josh Gilder who once said, “It does not matter with propaganda if your facts are wrong”.xv

 

The fact that Mr. Lucas has been busy attending TV appearances in every major cable news channel in England, the USA and elsewhere attests to his book’s nature as propaganda. Adding weigh to our point here is the fact that the book received commending reviews by almost every outlet of printed mass media as well. Obviously, influences who have deep pockets seem very interested in disseminating slander against Mr. Putin. 

But what are the scholars who are recognized as the leading sages of international relations saying? What are the academics who have mastered the history and politics of the Cold War responding to the approach taken by Edward Lucas?

From very early in his academic and scholarship career, Dr. Morton A. Kaplan has objected to the apparent blanket rejection by Western politicians of Russia and its government. Dr. Kaplan, who defines himself as a strong ideological opponent of Marxism, sustained for several decades that the Soviet Union was more diverse politically than what met the naked eye. His opinion came in the heat of the Cold War. He sustained that Russians were not hard-nosed Communists unwilling to reason with the West across the board. He suggested diversity of opinion, even among high-ranking Soviet government officials, even if diluted in political dissimulation. Dr. Kaplan argued for the possibility of fruitful dialog that could end the Soviet Union as an ostracized enemy of the West. He insightfully predicted the Fall of the Soviet system since the early eighties.xvi

 

Contrary to Mr. Lucas, Dr. Kaplan is both a high-caliber scholar. I consider him a diplomat Honoris Causa, whose wisdom we must thank for opening a channel of dialog between East and West through productive academic interaction. While Edward Lucas got great reviews and his book was showcased on every major news media outlet, what did Dr. Kaplan get? He laments in one of his latest essays that his series of four books did not get much of a fan fare.xvii

 

Another high caliber academic, whose political stance I consider to be close to Dr. Kaplan’s, is the international relations scholar Dr. Robert Legvold. Dr. Legvold is among the most highly recognized experts on international affairs and more specifically in US-Russia relations. In 2008, Doctor Legvold put together a team of scholars to work on an advisory project the US and Europe could use as a lifeline in their dealings with Russia. This fine group of experts conquered in calling for US policies toward Russia that promote dialog and cooperation between the two.xviii

Recent Rhetoric: Political Perspective.

Over the last decade, Politicians in the U. S. have been less than reasonable in their handling of verbal utterances concerning Putin and the Kremlin. Western European politicians, though following their somewhat more polished diplomacy tradition, at least on the public eye, nevertheless have been equally as tenacious, aggressive and incisive.

The political rhetoric in the US and Europe pins the Russian Government of every evil from expansionism, militarism, and bullying its neighbors, to violating the rights of gays, silencing NGOs, and the arrests of protesters.

On an individual level, however, some politicians in the U. S., for example, have been especially cutting with their sharp criticism of Mr. Putin. This pattern has somewhat united both Democrats and Republicans, as they finally seem to have found something they can work together on: Bashing Mr. Putin. Famous for their utterances in this sense are Senators Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Bob Graham, and many others. 

During the Republican primaries, former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, referred to Russia in terms of the greatest threat menacing the United States, Europe and the World in our times.

Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and many others have joined in to attacking the Russian president and his record on Human Rights, Gay Rights and tolerance of political opposition. Some have also criticized Russia on grounds of religious liberty, as Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses complain of experiencing discrimination in different parts of the Russian Federation.

I find two fundamental problems with this anti-Russia rhetoric. The first is that is assumes that Westerners are at liberty to impose their views on others. So, because our societies are subjected to accepting Gay Rights as a matter of Constitutional Law, we tend to demand that Russia follows our lead as a condition of integration. In those highly politicized issues, our politicians are not willing to tolerate dissent, let alone opposition. The concept of diversity only applies to the inclusion of Gays in society. It does not apply to the acceptance of countries who do not see eye to eye with our politicians. Of course, as long as that country is called Russia. For we do see Ms. Merkel, for example, complaining much about the treatment of Gays in Saudi Arabia. Former President Barack Obama didn’t seem to mind much either. Why would they complain about the treatment of gays in Chechnya, when they discriminate against gays for the same religious reasons Saudis do? Why are Saudis given the green light, but Russian Orthodox Christians and Chechens are not?

The second basis why I object to the political rhetoric, is that it assumes that everyone has to adopt democracy. Democracy is not the Law of God, and it definitely isn’t written in stone. As a matter of fact, the world’s oldest societies have never known or even smelled Democracy. Democracy was originally imposed by the force of arms and the rage of sharp cutting guillotine blades, have we so soon forgotten?

Are we still trying to use weapons to impose Democracy? Sanctions, embargoes, military strikes, invasions, rhetoric, you name it. How democratic is all that? What about live and let live? Does it only apply when referring to lifestyles religion is at odds with? Or does it apply as a general principle? Does not Democracy call for freedom and self determination? What if the self determination of religious societies exclude homosexuality? Should we go all around the world imposing homosexuality all over, and use weapons to subdue those who refuse? 

For that seems to be what was done to Americans and Europeans by their very “democratic” leaders, doesn’t it? Did we have a vote here in the USA to decide whether we want gay marriage? What about the vote of Californians who refused gay marriage in a landslide, yet a judge silenced their voice, and invalidated their vote. But, of course, their vote was annulled only after gay marriage was overwhelmingly rejected by the people. Is that what we call “Democracy”? And is that the reason why we want to impose it overseas, because it was imposed here onto us in the first place? That is not “Democracy”. That is tyranny, abuse and hypocrisy.

Actions Taken by Both Sides.

Base on the rhetoric, both sides have taken consequent action against each other. The United States and the West, however, deserve the designation of “aggressors” as they took the initiative and launched the first shots.

The diverse types of action taken by both parties of the political stand-off ranged from the closure of some consulates, to the expulsion of diplomats, economic sanctions against both country and citizens (as least from the United States against some Russian politicians and Putin supporters). 

The Syrian civil war saw the possibility of reenactment of the proxy wars of the Cold War, as the United States and the West found themselves backing one side and Russia backs the other. The recent bombings by the Trump administration of some Syrian Government positions in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrians exacerbated that possibility. 

A case in focus of the utmost importance here is the Ukrainian civil war. It rends the heart seeing beloved Ukrainians killing their own countrymen. The Ukrainian crisis has been brewing for many years. Since the days of Ukrainian Prime Minister, Julia Temochenko, and her feud with Vladimir Putin over natural gas and pipeline negotiations, through the days of her electoral defeat and later incarceration under charges of economic corruption, a Western response has been on the works.

The Arab spring, a series of anti-government revolts in the Middle East, and the “occupy” movement, extended their influence into the Ukraine, where very likely the West invested heavily to agitate part of the populace and initiate anti-government protests. As about a hundred-thousand took it to the streets to protest the government, the millions of government supporters who stayed at home were ignored. An illegal coup ousted the democratically elected government, and the West was swift to recognized the unconstitutional temporary government that replaced it, and its mock electoral process where less than 20% of Ukrainians took part.

As most Ukrainians consider themselves Russians, most citizens of the Ukraine broke out in civil war. The Crimeans held a vote where over 80% of the population voted, and over 85% of the population voted to officially become a part of their motherland, Russia. Of the remaining Ukrainians 2/3 of them are still fighting to restore legitimacy to the Ukrainian government.

The Ukrainian conflict is a dirty war of the West against Russian reintegration. The West fears the potential reconstitution of the former Soviet Empire, but now on an open market, capitalist platform. For if after adopting Western like capitalism, and engaging full unrestricted trade with the nations of the world, China could rise from rock-bottom shambles into a world class economic empire, so high so soon, can you imagine what the fifteen republics of the former Soviet Union could accomplish? And what if those fifteen republics united on an open market platform, and then China came under their wing? Who could resist such an alliance?

So the machinery of propaganda went to work to convince a slim, yet influential minority of Ukrainians, that a future with the West was more promissory than being discriminated against by the Commies from Moscow. And the rest is history.

What does the future hold for US-Russia Relations?

In my previous post, I emphasized the friendly relations the United States cultivated with Russia during the first hundred and ten years or so, of its existence. It was only after Russia was overtaken by strangers who despised Russian culture and traditions that the great relationship both countries enjoyed was interrupted. After the Communists who stole Russia from Russians collapse, the rational consequence would be the reestablishment of friendly relations between the two. This simple reasoning is of utmost importance to our understanding of history. Here is why.

The first brake-up between the U. S. and Russia was due to a change in Russia. Russia had fallen onto some influences who wanted it isolated from the rest of Europe. Why? For some reason those “influences” work very hard to prevent the unity of Eastern and Western Christianity. Russia is the throne of the Bishop of Constantinople. It is the kingdom of the successor of Cesar, or as Russians call him, the Tsar.

As over the last 27 years Russians freed themselves from those influences, however, the United States came under their suzerainty during WWII. So, the original “change” that caused the first rupture between the two friends actually shifted from one side to the other. So, as Russia is no longer Communist, those influences are inventing excuses to keep the most powerful countries representing Western and Eastern Christianity from forming an alliance. Such alliance, however, would be extremely beneficial to both countries, not only from a national security and world peace perspective, but moreover, from a purely economic point of view.

Therefore, up and until the United States and Western Europe brake free from such “influences” there is going to be conflict with Russia, not because Russia wants conflict, nor because Russia provokes it, but because those “influences” manipulate political leadership in the U. S. and Western Europe to make sure conflict with Russia exists for as long as Russia rejects their influence.For more on the historical background of those “influences”, see my book, Rise of the Sadducees.

Copyright © 2017. Daniel Santos

All Rights Reserved.

ENDNOTES:

i Legvold, Robert. “Foreign Affairs.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 87, no. 3, 2008, pp. 153–153., www.jstor.org/stable/20032687.

ii Lucas, Edward. The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West. Macmillan, 2014.

iii Lucas, Edward. Ibid.

iv Lucas, Edward. Ibid

v Lucas, Edward. Ibid

vi Lucas, Edward. Ibid

vii Lucas, Edward. Ibid

viii Lucas, Edward. Ibid

ix Lucas, Edward. Ibid

x Lucas, Edward. Ibid

xi “Eric von der Luft points out that the French Revolution is the recognized origin of “terrorism” as a political and national security issue”. Santos, Daniel. “Rise of the Sadducees”. 2017; See also: “"The terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ came into the language in the 1790s when British journalists, politicians, orators, and historians used them to describe the Jacobins and other particularly violent French Revolutionaries." (Eric von der Luft. “Terrorism, Philosophical and Ideological Origins.” Gale Encyclopedia of Espionage, 2Ed, V3. Pg. 148).

xii Lucas, Edward. Ibid.

xiii Lucas, Edward. Ibid.

xiv Lucas, Edward. Ibid.

xv Gilder, Josh. “PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science”. Center for Science and Culture. Discovery Institute. 2001. <http://www.discovery.org/a/1054>

xvi Kaplan, Morton A. “POSTSCRIPT ON THE SOVIET CRISIS AND US-RUSSIA RELATIONS.” International Journal on World Peace, vol. 27, no. 3, 2010, pp. 43–47., www.jstor.org/stable/23266501.

xvii Kaplan, Morton A. Ibid.

xviii “US Policy Towards Russia”. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 63, No. 4, 2010, pp 2-2.