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 Crimea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crimea. 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, March 5, 2014
Russia understandably wants to keep Crimea
Despite all the rhetoric over Russia's seizure of Crimea, the situation is not simple or all black-and-white. Crimea has a complex history that is not fairly compared to other international power plays.
So far, at least, Russia has not played military bully, as it did in Georgia a few years ago, or as the Soviet Union did in Czechoslovakia in 1968, when the "Prague Spring" was nipped in the bud.
For President Obama to say "this cannot stand," echoing the words of President George H.W. Bush about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, implies an exaggerated view of Russia's intentions. Russia has a history with Crimea, where many Russian-speaking people live. It also has a key naval base in Crimea that it worries might be threatened by a Ukrainian revolution. Russia's assertion that it was sending troops to protect Russian lives and property was little different from the United States' rationale for invading Grenada, Panama and Lebanon. And America's disproven rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 was more mendacious than Russia's motives in Crimea.
Vladimir Putin was wrong to use military force to halt or slow down the revolution in Ukraine, but his worries about protecting Russian interests are understandable. Like Russian leaders before him, he was too quick to use the military option when diplomatic efforts might have been more productive and less disruptive.
Russia will not give up its naval base in Crimea, which is essential to asserting its influence and protecting its interests in the Mediterranean. Short of annexation by military force, however, there should be way of guaranteeing Russia's access to its port through treaties. The United States, which will not give up its naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba, cannot act too self-righteous about Russia's self-interest in Crimea.
So far, at least, Russia has not played military bully, as it did in Georgia a few years ago, or as the Soviet Union did in Czechoslovakia in 1968, when the "Prague Spring" was nipped in the bud.
For President Obama to say "this cannot stand," echoing the words of President George H.W. Bush about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, implies an exaggerated view of Russia's intentions. Russia has a history with Crimea, where many Russian-speaking people live. It also has a key naval base in Crimea that it worries might be threatened by a Ukrainian revolution. Russia's assertion that it was sending troops to protect Russian lives and property was little different from the United States' rationale for invading Grenada, Panama and Lebanon. And America's disproven rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 was more mendacious than Russia's motives in Crimea.
Vladimir Putin was wrong to use military force to halt or slow down the revolution in Ukraine, but his worries about protecting Russian interests are understandable. Like Russian leaders before him, he was too quick to use the military option when diplomatic efforts might have been more productive and less disruptive.
Russia will not give up its naval base in Crimea, which is essential to asserting its influence and protecting its interests in the Mediterranean. Short of annexation by military force, however, there should be way of guaranteeing Russia's access to its port through treaties. The United States, which will not give up its naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba, cannot act too self-righteous about Russia's self-interest in Crimea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
