Followers of the turmoil in Ukraine should make a note of one word used by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to newly annexed Crimea on Thursday, May 8, one of the most sacred days on the Russian calendar. The word Putin chose, in referring to Russia, was "Motherland."
The word conjures memories of Josef Stalin, who used the word to rally the Soviet people against German troops in the darkest days of World War II. Stalin urged Russians (and other ethnic groups in the vast Soviet empire) to defend the Motherland against the invading Nazis. The invocation of "Motherland" was a desperate attempt to rebuild national pride where it had been destroyed by Stalin's own ruthless tactics of forced collectivization, rigged trials, mass starvation, executions and imprisonments for anyone who dared to cross Stalin or oppose his policies.
The tactic worked. Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Latvians and all the others rallied to fight the Germans, whom some had welcomed as liberators from Stalin's deadly regime. Defending the Motherland, Russians pushed the unstoppable Germans back from the Eastern Front, back through Poland, all the way to the German Fatherland, to the gates of Berlin. The Allied victory proclaimed May 8, 1945, was in large measure a Soviet success that had hinged on Stalin invoking the defense of the Motherland just as German troops dug in on the outskirts of Stalingrad and Leningrad.
Putin's borrowing of Stalin's phrase has ominous implications for Russia, Ukraine and the entire world. If Putin is following Stalin's world view and not just his choice of words, America can stop celebrating its victory in the Cold War and prepare for a new world order that is too much like the world of 1950.
Showing posts with label Cold War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cold War. Show all posts
Monday, May 12, 2014
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Remember the Cold War
If you thought we had put the Cold War behind us, you may have to think again. The actions and the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine are eerily familiar for those of us who lived through and survived, against the odds, it seemed, the Cold War of the 1950 and '60s.
If Vladimir Putin is another Khrushchev, should Barack Obama be another Truman, and should Ukraine be another Korea? Russia has reclaimed Crimea from Ukraine, but it hardly seems like a felony in international terms. Crimea had been part of Russia until Khrushchev gave the historic peninsula to Ukraine for reasons that are now obscure at best. Crimea plays a giant role in Russian history and was the focus of a major war, the Crimean War, that still lives in Russian legend and folklore.
Russia reclaiming Crimea does not seem to be such a big deal, really. But if Putin also wants to take over all or part of the rest of Ukraine, that's another matter. Putin is said to believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy that he hopes to correct by re-establishing the Russian Empire. If this assessment is true, Ukraine is not the only endangered sovereign state. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria should also be nervous.
The United States and Western Europe should oppose Putin's attempt to reverse history and should confront Russia's expansionist maneuvers. But confront how? Economic sanctions and other diplomatic efforts can isolate and hurt Russia's economy and prestige. Confrontations should fall short of military confrontation, as they did throughout nearly all of the Cold War. Do Americans want to go to war, even nuclear war, over Ukraine, a nation that most Americans can't find on a globe? Surely not. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and the United States has no obligation to defend it against aggression. But the destabilizing of the post-World War II world should worry all nations. Putin, like Hitler before him, has shrewdly taken territory and maneuvered other nations to do his will. Hitler's mistake was that he didn't stop with Austria and Sudetenland.
The question is where Putin will stop, or is he willing to risk hot war to achieve his grand ambitions.
If Vladimir Putin is another Khrushchev, should Barack Obama be another Truman, and should Ukraine be another Korea? Russia has reclaimed Crimea from Ukraine, but it hardly seems like a felony in international terms. Crimea had been part of Russia until Khrushchev gave the historic peninsula to Ukraine for reasons that are now obscure at best. Crimea plays a giant role in Russian history and was the focus of a major war, the Crimean War, that still lives in Russian legend and folklore.
Russia reclaiming Crimea does not seem to be such a big deal, really. But if Putin also wants to take over all or part of the rest of Ukraine, that's another matter. Putin is said to believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy that he hopes to correct by re-establishing the Russian Empire. If this assessment is true, Ukraine is not the only endangered sovereign state. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria should also be nervous.
The United States and Western Europe should oppose Putin's attempt to reverse history and should confront Russia's expansionist maneuvers. But confront how? Economic sanctions and other diplomatic efforts can isolate and hurt Russia's economy and prestige. Confrontations should fall short of military confrontation, as they did throughout nearly all of the Cold War. Do Americans want to go to war, even nuclear war, over Ukraine, a nation that most Americans can't find on a globe? Surely not. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and the United States has no obligation to defend it against aggression. But the destabilizing of the post-World War II world should worry all nations. Putin, like Hitler before him, has shrewdly taken territory and maneuvered other nations to do his will. Hitler's mistake was that he didn't stop with Austria and Sudetenland.
The question is where Putin will stop, or is he willing to risk hot war to achieve his grand ambitions.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Cold War strategies still affect policy
The "Arab Spring" continues, and Osama bin Laden is dead, but little attention is being paid to the ways the Cold War created and cultivated the authoritarian regimes that dominate the Middle East. During the Cold War, every developing nation was a battleground between communism and capitalist freedom. Africa, South America, Europe and Asia contained philosophical battlegrounds, where advocates of Marxism and capitalism competed for the hearts of the population and, especially, for the allegiance of the leaders. In many nations, the United States reluctantly supported cruel dictators because they were anti-communist. The battles for allegiances were especially strong in the Middle East, where strategic locations and vast reserves of oil made these nations important to both sides in the global struggle.
America installed and supported the Shah of Iran and supported the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. In Egypt, the Soviet Union wooed and won the support of Abdul Nasser, but the United States was able to persuade his successor, Anwar Sadat, to change sides. U.S. support continued for Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, who was finally forced from office after decades of brutal repression. How different the history of the Middle East might have been had the United States not been focused on fighting communist expansion at all costs? With global communism consigned to "the dustbin of history" (in Ronald Reagan's memorable phrase), the United States is willing to support protests and insurgencies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya without fear of turning these countries into mortal enemies.
The United States this week took out its primary mortal enemy of the post-Cold War era, al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Even though bin Laden has no allegiance to Marxism, his rise began in the U.S. support for Afghan fighters opposing the Soviet Union — support born of Cold War containment strategy.
The Cold War, which the United States won with the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991, ruled U.S. foreign policy for almost half a century and continues to affect U.S. policy today, 20 years after global communism collapsed. The Arab dictators, whom restless Arab populations have begun to rebel against, and the Islamist terrorism that opposes Western secularism, can be traced back to Cold War decisions. In containing communism successfully, we have developed entirely new problems.
America installed and supported the Shah of Iran and supported the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. In Egypt, the Soviet Union wooed and won the support of Abdul Nasser, but the United States was able to persuade his successor, Anwar Sadat, to change sides. U.S. support continued for Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, who was finally forced from office after decades of brutal repression. How different the history of the Middle East might have been had the United States not been focused on fighting communist expansion at all costs? With global communism consigned to "the dustbin of history" (in Ronald Reagan's memorable phrase), the United States is willing to support protests and insurgencies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya without fear of turning these countries into mortal enemies.
The United States this week took out its primary mortal enemy of the post-Cold War era, al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Even though bin Laden has no allegiance to Marxism, his rise began in the U.S. support for Afghan fighters opposing the Soviet Union — support born of Cold War containment strategy.
The Cold War, which the United States won with the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991, ruled U.S. foreign policy for almost half a century and continues to affect U.S. policy today, 20 years after global communism collapsed. The Arab dictators, whom restless Arab populations have begun to rebel against, and the Islamist terrorism that opposes Western secularism, can be traced back to Cold War decisions. In containing communism successfully, we have developed entirely new problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
