As the war rages, Russia is still Russia – The News Herald
In 1947, a book by John Fischer’s Harper’s was published entitled “Why They Behave Like Russians.” The book was an insightful look at Soviet culture, but it was disappointing that the book did not emphasize that the Communists were, above all, Russian.
A more recent 1983 book, The New Diplomacy, by Abba Eban, a late Israeli scholar and diplomat, shows that Soviet aggression was more of a Russian trait than a communist one. My problem with Eban is that he wanted the observation to be convincing, suggesting that we had little to fear from Russian communism.
As we have learned in recent months, it is hardly comforting that aggression has proved more Russian than communist. Although we have since celebrated the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is clear that our enthusiasm was premature. Indeed, Russian President Putin is a greater threat to peace than Khrushchev or Brezhnev.
It says a lot, especially given that this was the same Nikita Khrushchev who launched a brutal attack on Hungary in 1956 and pushed President Kennedy to the brink of nuclear war in Cuba in 1961. It was also the same Leonid Brezhnev who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
Unfortunately, Putin is worse.
Indeed, Putin is the most aggressive and authoritarian leader in Russia since Stalin (which Putin has shown his admiration for).
Even if Putin were able to subjugate Ukraine completely (which is his goal), his kingdom would not be as great as that of the Soviet Union. But Putin’s goals are not limited to Ukraine. Russia’s despot imagines a return to the map of the Cold War as Russia includes Central and Eastern Europe. In fact, Putin declared the break-up of the Soviet Union the worst disaster of the 20th century.
“Area of influence” is a term we have often heard referring to Vladimir Putin’s plans for Central and Eastern Europe. Putin has used the term as if it legitimizes his regional goals. The term dates back to the Treaty of Helsinki in 1975, when Foreign Minister Henry Kissinger led the West to grant Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. Kissinger had assured President Gerald Ford that the Helsinki Accords had no effect on the agreement.
But this is not how the Soviet Union saw it. Brezhnev considered the Helsinki treaties to be the crowning achievement and that the treaties strongly strengthened the power of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe.
Putin is trying to regain power and believes he can do it. Unfortunately, the United States and the West lack the current leadership pressure to stress to Putin that his ambitions are unacceptable.
President Biden was right to declare in Poland that Putin “cannot stay in power”. But Biden has since rejected his legitimate demand for a change of regime in Russia. Biden has only made clear the circumstances in which he will not accept Russia, which includes most scenarios.
Back to the Russian trait, while communism in its pure form discourages nationalism, all the communist movements of the 20th century contained the pressure of heavy nationalism. Stalin claimed to have a Russian background and Trotsky was also proud of his self-image as a Russian. The irony is that neither was Russian. Stalin was a Georgian and Trotsky a Jew.
But it is instructive to reflect on the history of nationalism in the ranks of communism in order to understand Putin’s modern ghost. It remains to be seen how far Putin will be able to expand the kingdom he dreams of. It remains to be seen to what extent Putin will implement his agenda before Biden begins to seriously oppose it.
John O’Neill is a freelance writer for Allen Park. He holds a degree in history from Wayne State University.