Cross posted from European Tribune. Because it’s Americans who need to read this.
In my “when everyone votes for a dictatorship” diary, someone pointed me to an article by Stephen Cohen in The Nation. I stopped reading The Nation after we did not renew our subscription during our post-election depression. One can only take complaining about Bush and sweatshops for so long before one gets the point already. So, it is with great relief that I see they’ve pulled themselves back from the brink of insignificance and have published something not just important, but necessary.
I have my qualms with people like Stephen Cohen for reasons stated elsewhere. But My God if I thought that personally delivering this article to each member of Congress would make an inch of difference, I’d do it myself right now.
Here’s an excerpt for the sake of bloggyness even though you’ll only truly appreciate it if you read the whole article:
Since the early 1990s Washington has simultaneously conducted, under Democrats and Republicans, two fundamentally different policies toward post-Soviet Russia–one decorative and outwardly reassuring, the other real and exceedingly reckless. The decorative policy, which has been taken at face value in the United States, at least until recently, professes to have replaced America’s previous cold war intentions with a generous relationship of “strategic partnership and friendship.” The public image of this approach has featured happy-talk meetings between American and Russian presidents, first “Bill and Boris” (Clinton and Yeltsin), then “George and Vladimir.”
The real US policy has been very different–a relentless, winner-take-all exploitation of Russia’s post-1991 weakness. Accompanied by broken American promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions, it has been even more aggressive and uncompromising than was Washington’s approach to Soviet Communist Russia. Consider its defining elements as they have unfolded–with fulsome support in both American political parties, influential newspapers and policy think tanks–since the early 1990s:
~A growing military encirclement of Russia, on and near its borders, by US and NATO bases, which are already ensconced or being planned in at least half the fourteen other former Soviet republics, from the Baltics and Ukraine to Georgia, Azerbaijan and the new states of Central Asia…
~A tacit (and closely related) US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin or contiguous former republics such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia…
~Even more, a presumption that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders, as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow’s internal affairs since 1992.
That interventionary impulse has now grown even into suggestions that Putin be overthrown by the kind of US-backed “color revolutions” carried out since 2003 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and attempted this year in Belarus…
~Underpinning these components of the real US policy are familiar cold war double standards condemning Moscow for doing what Washington does–such as seeking allies and military bases in former Soviet republics, using its assets (oil and gas in Russia’s case) as aid to friendly governments and regulating foreign money in its political life…
~Finally, the United States is attempting, by exploiting Russia’s weakness, to acquire the nuclear superiority it could not achieve during the Soviet era.
I do have some complaints about the article which have more to do with tone and framing than the facts. “Poor,” “savaged,” “tormented” Russia? Uhg. But I’ve given up expecting any better. I do, however, find his premise that we should change our tune on Russia to prevent them from going ballistic on us to be a bit rich. The repeated meme of “unstable, hair-trigger alert” is rather unfair, given the way Russia’s been practicing diligent self-control while we’ve been bombing the shit out of any country who even looks at us the wrong way… But I get Cohen’s intent. One can’t expect this Administration to acknowledge their idiocy or show sincere empathy, but they seem a bit obsessed with the possibility of people turning their WMD’s, existent or not, on us. So it makes sense to play to that tune. Still, a bit intellectually dishonest, Stephen. What the world needs now is surely NOT more scaremongering.
Anyway, I highly recommend reading the whole shebang, as it provides in detailed examples the myriad of ways America has forced Russia to bend over and take it for the past 15 years, and suggests an alternative, or at least a complimentary analysis to Mark Ames’ recent opus. Completely different tones. Completely different reasoning. But it’s not clear that they are both not equally right.
Most of Cohen’s observations have already been discussed at ET ad infinitum. Demanding Russia acts in our best interests, not respecting their sovereignty, blaming Russia for the chaos we helped create, accepting their help and accommodations while not returning the favor, and what Cohen terms, the “anti-Russia fatwa” in Washington and the American media. All of which have only encouraged the very behavior Washington should want to prevent, like increased nationalism, militarization, re-alignment of powers (Iran, China, Venezuela…)
What is fascinating, and terrifying, about Cohen’s analysis is that while America is now in Cold War mode -He maintains Russia’s refusing to play this game. So far. But not forever…- is that, unlike the old Cold War, there is no negotiation & cooperation, no détente, which keeps this one from becoming an actual war. We’re calling it a Cold War, but who’s preventing it from getting hot? Forget the Administration, they think war -the kill thousands of people and take over their countries kind- is a good thing. Congress? They are all on board with the Admin. The Media? Same. The Public? In the olden days groups opposed to nuclear proliferation played a large role in the “anti-Cold War” lobby. Where are those groups today? Largely dismantled. And the intellectuals who spoke out against the Cold War in the past? While Commies used to infest our halls of learning, Neo-Cons are the new vermin. They’re no help. Basically, there is no visible dissent. (I guess Professor Cohen doesn’t read European Tribune, ahem…)
He’s calling for an American version of Gorbachev to step forward and put an end to this insanity.
Good. Fucking. Luck. (Is this what problem solving in America has come to? Waiting for Prince Charming?)
But, sign me up for the dissent lobby, Steve. I want to enlist.
I admit to liking this article very much because it echoes what I’ve been saying all along. So Colman’s probably bothered. But events have unfolded this week which make me being right of rather little consequence:
President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia’s secret services to find and kill those who kidnapped four Russian Embassy employees in Iraq and then executed them, the Kremlin announced.
The bluntness of the statement reflected the deep shock and anger – much of it directed at the United States – that has unfolded in Russia after the kidnapping on June 3 in an attack that killed a fifth Russian. The Foreign Ministry confirmed the execution of the hostages Monday, following the release of a short video that showed the beheading of one of the men and the shooting of another. The video showed a head placed on a body, though it was unclear whether it was the same man shown being beheaded. The fate of the other hostages was not shown.
“The president gave instructions to the Russian special services to take all measures for finding and destroying the criminals who committed this atrocity,” the Kremlin said, according to the official Russian Information Agency.
…
The United States, along with many other countries, has denounced the killings of the embassy workers – including a third secretary, a maintenance worker, driver and a cook – as an act of terror. American military commanders in Iraq pledged to help find the hostages and, after their deaths, to help find those who killed them. But far from finding common cause over the killings, many Russian officials, clerics, politicians and commentators have blamed the deaths on the United States and the failure of the U.S.-led forces to provide security.
On Wednesday, the lower house of Parliament voted to adopt a statement referring to the “occupying countries” in Iraq, blaming them for the deaths.
“We believe they could have prevented the tragedy,” the statement said.
and this:
At the United Nations, Russia ran into a roadblock Wednesday in an appeal to the Security Council to condemn the diplomats’ killings, Reuters reported.
The United States and Britain objected to parts of a draft Russian statement, arguing it amounted to a slap at the U.S.-led forces.
I knew we were in bad shape, but our forces aren’t even equipped to handle a slap?
This talk of hunting people down and killing them smacks of posturing. Tough guy talk. Is Russia really going to send their special forces into the hell-hole we’ve created over there and find the bad guys? Who knows. You can never tell with those sneaky Russians. (Troops: Mow down Boris, but please don’t shoot Natasha. She’s my namesake! And so cool!)
Now. Back to reality. Given the context of Cohen’s artice, Putin’s response to this outrageous incident seems closer to that of a well-trained puppy than a nuke-wielding enemy of democracy. Who could forgive him cutting out the nice-guy act now? Think about it:
Cold War. Russia is occupying some unstable Central Asian nation. They’ve totally fucked everything up but are assuring us it’s like totally safe to conduct governmental business there. Extremist militants in said Soviet nation chop off the heads of American diplomats and send us the tape.
Huh.
“Hair-trigger”? I’m going with “Goddamned Fucking Gentleman” (how to you say that in Russian?) until the day Putin takes Bush out behind the shed, as they say around here.
::
p.s. If anyone asks, tell the cafeteria lady at Gitmo that I’d prefer the baked potato to the rice pilaf. With sour cream, please.
