Russia
Rises From the Mat
The U.S. government doesn’t want to admit that its
heady “unipolar” days are over with Russia no longer
the doormat of the 1990s, but Washington’s arrogance
risks war, even nuclear annihilation, explains
Gilbert Doctorow.
By Gilbert Doctorow
In Moscow, the
preparations for the May 9th Victory Day
parade began in the middle of the final week of
April. Heavy equipment including mobile ICBM
carriers and the latest battle tanks, together with
troop formations passing through Red Square, carry
on the long tradition established in Soviet times of
demonstrating the nation’s military might on this
day for televised dissemination across the entire
expanse of Eurasia.
Meanwhile,
preparations have also been made for this year’s
edition of another Victory Day parade that began
just one year ago but is likely to become a still
more enduring tradition, the so-called March of the
Immortal Regiment in which ordinary citizens carry
photographs of their own family heroes from WWII:
fathers, grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers who
fought on the front or worked at defense positions
behind the lines.
These
processions, which are held in towns across Russia,
tap into a nationwide wellspring of emotion and pay
tribute to the fact that every family in the country
lost members to the WWII war effort.
Every one.
This
extraordinary sense of loss from war is something
that sets Russian consciousness apart from American
consciousness and at times makes it difficult to
recall that we were allies in that epochal war. The
40 years of Cold War alienation between us is
another factor that dims what we once achieved
together. For these reasons, President Vladimir
Putin’s evocation of our WWII alliance when he spoke
before the United Nations General Assembly meeting
in September 2015 and called upon the United States
to link arms with Russia and head up a multinational
effort to defeat the Islamic State and vanquish
terrorism fell on deaf ears in the U.S.
Tense Relations
The past
several years have not been easy for relations
between our countries. And yet, if looked at with
some detachment, the apple of contention between us
can and should become the very source of our future
mutual understanding and cooperation in addressing
constructively the world’s many problems. Both
nations in their own way take pride in their
independent spirit and creative contributions to
peace and generalized prosperity. Both nations are
great powers that determine the world’s destiny.
Both are “hammers,” not “nails.” For that very
reason we are often at odds.
On the U.S.
side, triumphalism over its self-declared “victory”
in the Cold War in 1989, gloating over the economic
and social collapse of the Russian Federation in the
1990s, and ambition to secure Woodrow Wilson’s
vision of a world safe for democracy through
interventions abroad intended to hasten the
seemingly inevitable course of history all
heightened the tensions in Russian-American
relations way beyond where they would naturally have
been from the inherent competitiveness of two great
powers.
Until the
eye-opening display of Russian military gear and
capability beginning with the bloodless
reunification with Crimea of spring 2014 and running
through the resoundingly successful five-month
Russian air campaign in Syria starting in October
2015,
Russian
President Vladimir Putin addresses a crowd on
May 9, 2014, celebrating the 69th anniversary of
victory over Nazi Germany and the 70th
anniversary of the liberation of the Crimean
port city of Sevastopol from the Nazis. (Russian
government photo)
American
behavior towards Russia in the new millennium had
been conditioned by a now seriously outdated view of
its potential adversary as a failing state lacking
in economic might and in social coherence to
withstand serious pressure from outside, enjoying
unjustified international rights inherited from its
Soviet past and having as its only military props an
aging strategic nuclear force that would be
practically unusable if push came to shove because
that would spell national suicide.
The reality
today is what President Boris Yeltsin foretold to
Bill Clinton when Russia was in a supine position,
protesting lamely against American intervention in
Russia’s old client state, Serbia: “think again,
because Russia will be back.”
Indeed,
under Vladimir Putin Russia has come back as great
powers usually do. It may be smaller than the USSR,
but it is vastly more fit, with a mixed
market/directed economy that is far more agile and
better managed, with conventional forces that
approach and in certain domains exceed Western
standards. Russia’s living standards are higher and
it possesses strong reserves of patriotism to
support a shared sense of its place in the
world. Russia is now a formidable and arguably
unbeatable foe if confrontation is where some U.S.
policymakers want relations to go.
There are
those Americans who look back with nostalgia to what
they perceive as Ronald Reagan’s negotiations with
Moscow “from a position of strength.” U.S.
Ambassador to Russia at the time, Jack Matlock, has
made it clear that the U.S. carefully avoided any
appearance of abusing its relative advantage when
dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev to reach a dramatic
relaxation of tensions through dismantling the
Soviet Union’s Eastern European empire on mutually
agreed terms. But even if we assume that the
“position of strength” was an invisible driver of
those talks, in conditions of today’s revitalized
Russia such an approach is only bringing us
tit-for-tat escalation of military and political
posturing.
Nuclear War Risks
In such a
climate of heightening tensions, the law of averages
tells us that if something can go amiss it will, and
there is presently too little shared trust to ensure
that faulty launch warnings or some similar
technical or human errors will not lead to
irrevocable counter-responses, ending civilization
on Earth as we know it.
Statesmanship and common sense dictate that the
United States and Russia seek ways to engage with
one another in permanent rather than episodic
manner, and that we deal with each other in a spirit
of equality and mutual respect.
That is the
essence of foreign policy “realism” – the judicious
use of American power – which has been injected into
the ongoing presidential campaign as a guiding
principle by Republican candidate Donald Trump. He
has no proprietary rights over it, and it would be a
good thing if congressional candidates gave it a
test drive as well because it is the only approach
to international affairs that can save us from
needless confrontation and risk of nuclear war,
which is where we find ourselves today.
Only when
this critical threat has been resolved can we move
on to the unquestionable benefits of constructive
programs of cooperation between Russia and the
United States in peace-keeping and support for
political processes in the world’s hot spots, in
investment and trade, in culture and education, in
sports, in science and technology, and in the many
other forms of interaction at the level of ordinary
citizens which characterized these relations in
happier times.
Gilbert Doctorow is the European Coordinator of The
American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. His
most recent book Does
Russia Have a Future?
was published in August 2015.
© Gilbert
Doctorow, 2016 |