The Buie Knife

Long-Suffering Ukraine and Crimea. Are Other Former Soviet Republics Next?

Some of the best coverage of the conflicts in Crimea and Ukraine recently were in The New Yorker. Few in the West seem to remember the long-suffering history of the region. As many as eight million Ukrainians were purposely starved to death by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in the early 1930s. Yet this genocide did not prick the West's conscience like the Jewish Holocaust did, and certainly is not used as a major argument for Ukrainian independence from Russia the way that the Jewish Holocaust was a major rationale for creating the independent nation of Israel. 

Jon Lee Anderson reports on upheaval in the Crimea, with predictions of "a river of blood" coming with Russian occupation:

For the second time in seventy years, the Crimean Tatars are forced to confront a complete upending of their lives. The Tatars, Muslim descendants of Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde, saw virtually their entire community—some two hundred thousand people—uprooted in May, 1944, after Stalin’s forces took Crimea from the occupying Nazis. Stalin justified the occupation by pointing out that some Tatars had fought alongside the Nazis in the war—even though others had fought in the Red Army. Nearly half of the Tatars are thought to have died in the harsh conditions of their deportation and the early years of their exile.

In the late nineteen-eighties, as the Soviet Union opened up a bit, Tatars were allowed to return, and a trickle began coming back from Central Asia. Those who could afford it returned to their villages, but few provisions were made for their reintegration into Ukrainian society, and there was no compensation for the properties they had lost. Many ended up squatting on public lands, where they remain. Known as the “original inhabitants” of the peninsula, Crimea’s Tatars now constitute twelve per cent of the region’s population. They are the poorest and least educated section of society, and the least represented in local government. For all the rhetoric emanating from the Kremlin—and from Kiev—they are effectively the Ukraine’s Lakota Sioux.

Or Palestinians?

Nervous Baltic Republics, Belarus, Moldovia

Citizens of the Baltic republics -- Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia -- as well as the former Soviet republics of Belarus and Moldovia watch nervously to see what happens with Ukrainian independence. They too were once part of "Greater Russia," and Vladimir Putin might want them back as well. 

I also note that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ten years ago, George W. Bush was roundly criticized for "weakness" in light of Putin's authoritarian pressures on Ukraine, much as Barack Obama is criticized for "weakness" today. In both cases, one wonders what the strategic interest of a war-weary US is in the Ukraine, which in Cold War terms, is still within Russia's "sphere of influence."

The American people can sometimes be roused to foreign intervention by appeals to higher morality and idealism, or the principle that "aggression must not be rewarded," as George H.W. Bush declared before "liberating" Kuwait from Iraq. But such appeals to principle are highly selective and often don't work out well (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now a mess). We have so far resisted intervention in Syria and Ukraine on the grounds that realism and pragmatism must prevail, but it's not clear that diplomacy is having much impact.  

The more I study foreign relations, the more I realize morality, realism, pragmatism and principles of non-aggression are selectively applied in the world. 

Drill Deeper:

• Former Soviet republics watch nervously
• best coverage of Crimea and Ukraine from NewYorker.com

Previous:

• Bush Too Soft on Putin's Attempts to Spread Authoritarianism

•  Ukrainian Revolution Will Be Blogged

Related articles

Zbigniew Brzezinski: West Needs to Arm Ukraine and Stand Up to Russia's Putin

Alexander Dugin: Letter to the American People on Ukraine

Putin's 'Greater Novorossiya': The Dismemberment Of Ukraine - Analysis

NATO: Russia may achieve goals without Ukraine invasion?!?

Indoctrination and Good Vs. Evil Paradigms Still Shape Our Assumptions About Russia and the World

Watch this on Youtube.com

I'll never forget my introduction to Russia and world politics in junior high school. First we read "The Communist Manifesto." Then we read "Animal Farm," about the "real way" it worked.  A small cadre of unprincipled, violent, godless, radical atheists seized power in Russia in 1917, toppling the Christian tsar, murdering his family and proceeded to turn Russia into a prison camp called the Soviet Union. All private property was seized by the government. Children were forced to tattle to the government on their parents' thoughts and actions. They were programmed and indoctrinated. Then after World War II, the virus of communism spread into Eastern Europe, China, and right to America's doorstep in Cuba, 90 miles from our shores. Next our teacher dramatically showed us a world map. He explained the "Domino Theory" and pointed to all the countries that had fallen to the "Reds." It was pretty scary. The commies were united in their desire to overtake the world and to bury us, our teacher said, and we had to stop them.

That's why we were in Vietnam. To stop communist aggression and give the Vietnamese people freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to own private property and to become prosperous like we were in America. To stop the dominoes from falling. We only half succeeded in stopping the communists in Korea. If Vietnam fell to the Reds, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, Australia and New Zealand couldn't be far behind.  And then the communists would move on to conquer Hawaii, Alaska, Canada and the West coast of the United States.  The communists would stop at nothing.

I was ready to enlist in the army to defend my country and our way of life.

Believe it or not, our teacher said, there were American citizens who did not want us to win in Vietnam, did not want us to beat the Reds, and would actually assist them in America. There were communists right here in America, right here in North Carolina. My teacher was a big fan of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. I read "Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It" and reported on it for class.

These communists threatened our way of life, especially in the South, my teacher said. They pushed racial integration as a way to get blacks and whites fighting each other. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a rabblerouser, controlled by communists. He started riots and cowardly fled the scene, we were told.

At that, I started to doubt what I was taught, to do some reading on my own, and to come back to my teacher with questions. The more I studied, the more I realized his simplistic world view was falling apart.  To be sure, I had been gripped and initially frightened by it. He had gotten my attention. Less threatening, boring "pro and con" analyses of America's role in the world perhaps might not have captured a 14-year-old boy's imagination.

So in that sense, his teaching was a success. I had resisted programming and indoctrination. He had inspired me to think for myself, to study, and to his credit, allowed me to debate him and try to punch holes in his arguments.

These good-vs-evil paradigms and black-vs.-white dichotomies still shape our views of the world. Fox News and MSNBC generate them routinely. Sometimes it's implicit assumptions rather than explicit assertions, which we know do not stand up to scrutiny:

• Western Civilization (Always Good) Vs. Middle Eastern Civilization (Always Bad).
• Individualism (Always Good) Vs. Collectivism (Always Bad).
• Christianity and Judaism (Always Good) Vs. Islam (Always Bad).
• Israel (Always Good) Vs. Arabs (Always Bad)
• Capitalism and Free Market Economics (Always Good) vs. Socialism (Always Bad):  
• Job-stealing Global Economy & MultiNational Corporate Greed (Always Bad) Vs. Loyal, Homegrown, Small Businesses (Always Good).
• (Conversely) Global Economy of Limitless Opportunities (Always Good) Vs. Stagnating Low-wage Small Businesses (Always Bad).   

Or vice versa. One purpose of education is to recognize indoctrination (like I experienced as a 14-year-old) and develop a nuanced view of the world.

I'm sure you can think of other either/or, good vs. bad paradigms. if only the world were so black and white, life would be a lot simpler, wouldn't it?

Related:

• Indoctrination by Glenn Beck and Red Scare Redux, Except This Time About Islam.
• Meet the New Russia, Same as the Old Russia. 

Related articles

The Power of the Myth-Negation: A Tale of Four Movies

Meet the New Russia, Same As the Old Russia, Seeking to Maintain Empire

Russia today is now investing in a much stronger military, strongest in two decades, to counter concerns about the growing threat of China, Japan and the US in the Pacific. See "Massive Exercises Underscore Russia's Interests in Asia." It is also creating a Eurasia Union with former Soviet states, set to launch in 2015. On the surface, these moves may be seen as defensive in nature. But it could very well be that Russia is seeking to recreate its old empire. 

The truth is that today's Russia does not act much different in foreign or domestic policy from the former Soviet Union. Twenty years ago, it did let go of its satellites in Eastern Europe, of course, because it couldn't afford to subsidize them any longer. It allowed the Berlin Wall to be torn down, Germany to unite, and it no longer engages in an intense "sphere-of-influence" battle or lethal arms race with the US. (It has signed numerous nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the US to limit arsenals.)

But Russia still sharply restricts free speech, jails dissidents and generally has a poor human rights record. See Human Rights Watch's report, "Worst Human Rights Record in Post-Soviet Period." Russia's now "capitalist" economy doesn't work much better than its old communist economy. (See "Russia's Economy Sputtering" in The Economist.)

These were things the U.S. spotlighted during the Cold War, opposing the Soviet Union on moralistic grounds and thumping our chests over our superior economy and superior freedoms. Now we mostly look the other way from Russia's human rights record, because there's not much propaganda value to be gained among non-aligned nations in trumpeting America's economic superiority when they know that already and the world is no longer a bipolar clash between two superpowers, engaged in proxy wars -- hot or cold -- all over the globe.

We're no longer "engaged in a long twilight struggle with communism," as John Kennedy said. There's not much to be gained by American presidents to refer to the Russian threat with domestic audiences either. "The people" already perceive that "we won the Cold War," and don't want to hear otherwise. 

Yet Russia still perceives the US as a great competitor if not a threat in parts of Eastern Europe, the Middle East (Syria and Iran), and Asia. It's nervous because neighboring buffer states have disappeared. Lauren Goodrich, Stratfor:

"The US successfully incorporated former Soviet satellites into NATO, supported pro-Western "color revolutions" in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; set up military bases in Central Asia; and announced plans to place ballistic missile defense installations in Central Europe. To Russia, it seemed the United States was devouring its periphery to ensure that Moscow would forever remain vulnerable."

The truth is that Vladimir Putin, now in his 14th year of power, does not act much different from the old Soviet premiers or Russian czars. See some of the many references to "Czar Putin." He's an autocrat not accustomed to sharing power with a Congress or Supreme Court like US presidents must.

More from Lauren Goodrich of Stratfor:

"The Soviet Union did not act differently from most of the Russian empires before it, and Russia today is following the same behavioral pattern. Russia's defining characteristic is its indefensibility, which means its main strategy is to secure itself. Unlike most powerful countries, Russia's core region, Muscovy, has no barriers to protect it and thus has been invaded several times. Because of this, throughout history Russia has expanded its geographic barriers in order to establish a redoubt and create strategic depth between the Russian core and the myriad enemies surrounding it. This means expanding to the natural barriers of the Carpathian Mountains (across Ukraine and Moldova), the Caucasus Mountains (particularly to the Lesser Caucasus, past Georgia and into Armenia) and the Tian Shan on the far side of Central Asia. The one geographic hole is the North European Plain, where Russia historically has claimed as much territory as possible (such as the Baltics, Belarus, Poland and even parts of Germany). In short, for Russia to be secure it must create some kind of empire."

Look at the history of invasions of Russia. 

• 1941: Germany invades USSR.
• 1938: Japan invades Soviet Union.

• 1920: Poland Invades Bolshevik Russia.
• 1918: Allies intervene in Russian civil war.
• 1915: Germany and Austria-Hungary invade Russia.
• 1904: Japan invades Russia.

• 1854: Britain and France invade Russia.

• 1812: Napoleon Invades Russia.
• 1709: Sweden Invades Russia.
• 1609: Poland and Lithuania invade Russia.
• 1571: Tatars of Crimea invade Russia.

Now you can argue that in some of these cases, Russia was actually the aggressor. But at the least, you'd have to concede that at least five times in 150 years, from 1812 to 1941, Russia was a victim of foreign invasion. Insecurity is not just paranoia on the part of Russians. In sharp contrast, aside from the War for Independence in 1776 and a few border disputes with Mexico, the continental United States has been invaded by foreign armies only once since its formation, by Britain in 1812. Yet the US has spent far more on military matters than Russia has. 

To maintain its empire, Russia must keep a strong central government, and "a tight grip on society and security," Goodrich observed. Russia's leader -- whether Christian Czar, Soviet premier, or current president -- must make it clear he controls the army and the security apparatus, she says.  

Characteristics of the Russian state we Americans wrongly blamed on Soviet communism -- the failure to provide a strong and efficient economy and integrate its many ethnicities, the brutal suppression of non-conformists and dissidents, the desire to dominate neighboring countries -- were actually endemic to the nation's geographica position and history, and remain so.

Drill Deeper:

• Analysis of Russian Geopolitics by Lauren Goodrich, Stratfor.
• Massive Exercises Underscore Russia's Interests in Asia.
• Eurasia Union
• The Cold War: A New History, by John Lewis Gaddis, the Dean of Cold War historians. It's hard to believe that for today's college students, the Cold War that was so vivid and scary to my generation is so remote. "Stalin and Truman, Reagan and Gorbachev, could as easily have been Napoleon or Caesar or Alexander the Great," Gaddis writes. 

Previous: 

• Russia, A Deeply Conservative Society That Rarely Changes
• Whither Russia? Democracy or Autocracy?

Related articles

Russia Announces a Naval Buildup in the Pacific

Mapping Eastern Europe, a Postcolonial Narrative?

Russia holds biggest war games in decades

Moscow is No Place for a Defector

Political Freedom, Faith in Democracy Decline Worldwide

Political freedom and faith in democracy have been in decline around the world since 2004, says Freedom House in a study. The Economist, in its analysis of the report, says more countries are interested in the Chinese model of economic growth while stifling dissent and maintaining one-party rule.

In the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel is free, while Morocco, Kuwait, and Lebanon are classified as "partly free," according to the study. Turkey is classified as "partly free." In sub-Saharan Africa, only South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Benin, Ghana, and Mali are free. In North and South America, the biggest countries are free, but Cuba is "not free," and Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay are "partly free." In Western, Central and Eastern Europe, most countries are classified as free, but the former Soviet Union has shifted from "partially free" to "not free."  In Central Asia, Mongolia, India, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan are classified as free, while Pakistan, Thailand, Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, and New Guinea are partially free.Overview.

Music Video: Billy Joel Singing Leningrad

Seeking Out News from Russia

Since good, consistent international news, especially of Russia, has always been hard to come by in the American media, the Internet provides a great resource for people (unlike most Americans) really interested in international news. I particularly like the BBC news web site, and its country profiles, particularly of Russia, which even includes an audio clip of the Russian national anthem. I found interesting material on Chechen singer Liza Umarova, who hopes that her music calling for peace will win over audiences on both sides of the conflict.

Bush Too Soft on Putin's Attempts to Spread Authoritarianism

"That Mr. Bush has not said such words [that elections within Ukraine have got to be free of Russian influence] to his friend Vladimir only makes him look weak -- and raises the risk that Ukraine's democratic revolution will yet be turned back." -- Washington Post editorial.

Ukrainian Revolution Will Be Blogged

I visited the Ukraine once many years ago, and I have a special empathy for those wonderful people. My son Matthew had a fantastic visit there a couple of years ago visiting the family of his friend Oxana, as the pictures on his blog attest. He just IM'ed me that Oxana is in Kiev, demonstrating with her sister Olesia and tens of thousands of other citizens (latest estimate, 100,000) out in the freezing cold -- demonstrating for their country's freedom, independence, for democracy, and for honest elections. He's trying to ping her cell phone with IM, from the cruise ship he is working on in the Caribbean. Ain't technology incredible?

Our thoughts and prayers remain with Oxana, her family, and other Ukrainians. May freedom and democracy win out against totalitarianism!

For an on-the-ground report from a Ukranian blogger, click. "The Revolution Will Be Blogged." For insightful analysis of the situation, read Daniel Rezner's blog.

Russia, A Deeply Conservative Society

On the surface, the former Soviet Union has a history of sudden, radical change and transformation -- in 1917, the czarist regime was toppled and Bolsheviks ruthlessly seized power. In the early 1990s, communism collapsed, Russia ceded superpower status to the United States, and democracy supposedly was victorious.

But as I have observed in two trips to that fascinating and mysterious land, in many ways, below the surface Russia has not changed much since czarist days. That famous prayer of Topel in "Fiddler on the Roof": "God bless and keep the czar...far away from US!" still represents many Russians' historic view of politics -- political involvement brings mostly trouble.

You will find far more Russians who exhibit 19th century values, who are more nostalgic for the past than looking forward to the future, than you'll find Americans who exhibit 19th century values, who would choose a return to the past over the future.

Ironically, arch-conservatives in the United States, ostensibly suspicious of foreigners and particularly disdainful of former communists, may actually find today that they are sympathico and share values with Russian aparachniks, former communists, about the desire for ORDER, respect for TRADITION, comfort with funneling contracts and largesse to "our kind of people," an elite, establishment class of friends and cronies who have always run things, who are far less concerned with giving equal opportunity to new people, minorities, people of color, far less interested in economic democracy and political diversity than progressives in the United States.

Perhaps this explains why President Bush gets along so well with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul." Bush famously said of the former KGB head.

I was struck by what a basically CONSERVATIVE society Russia is, how slowly real, broad systemic change occurs, how tightly the citizenry holds on to their own notions of "traditional values." In my first trip, in the late 1970s, when anyone who visited the Soviet Union was suspected of being a radical leftist, I noted ironically that the Russians I met were as apolitical and indifferent to political activism and civil rights as the most conservative, change-averse traditionalists in the United States.

Whither Russia? Democracy or Autocracy?

My view of Russia as essentially a conservative and slowly changing society is confirmed in a new book, BETWEEN DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY: Russian Post-Communist Political Reform, which addresses the question of where Russia is headed: toward democracy and openness or reverting back to its autocratic traditions.

Russia has made a lot of progress toward democracy since the Soviet era, but far less than what was projected in the optimism of the early 1990s. The authors suggest Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is moving back in an autocratic direction, according to a review by Richard Pipes, in today's New York Times.

Civil society remains under-developed; non-governmental organizations are weak; Russian political parties are weak. Members of the media have evolved since the early 1990s from "spokespeople for democratic change under perestroika to tools in internal power struggles among the political and business elite in the latter part of the 1990's. Currently the media have for the most part reverted to one of the roles they played under the Soviet Communist regime: the government's propaganda apparatus."

Legal institutions value order over freedom, hierarchy over democracy. Russians "have a high degree of tolerance for blatantly undemocratic phenomena, such as administrative lawlessness" and "unpunished violations of human rights," assert the chapter authors, Vladimir Petukhov and Andrei Ryabov.

The initial appeal of a Western-style governmental system was the economic prosperity it would bring to Russia. "When democracy promptly failed to bring prosperity, disenchantment set in, and today no more than 10 percent of the people continue to favor democracy," Pipes writes.

The authors might be more optimistic about Russia's future if they focused more on the de-concentration of wealth in the hands of the state and into the hands of the people of Russia, Pipes suggests. Is that truly occurring? Or is the wealth of Russia transferring primarily to a relatively few capitalists or "entrepreneurs"?

The Russian perspective on democracy and capitalism can be explained by Russian history, Pipes says. "If Russians mistrust democracy and the independent press, or if they set higher value on order than on freedom, the reason lies in experiences dating back to czarist days," Pipes observes. "Bewildered by a world in which they have been unable so far to find a secure place for themselves and perplexed by the uncertainties of freedom, Russians are instinctively withdrawing into the familiar universe of autocratic rule. Since experience has taught them they can have no influence on affairs of government no matter what the regime, they are willing to let their rulers do as they please so long as they allow them to pursue their private interests. They are profoundly apolitical because they can see little that government can do for them or they for the government."

Pipes quotes a specialist on Russian law, Stephen Holmes: "Those at the top neither exploit nor oppress those at the bottom. They don't even govern them; they simply ignore them." And that's the way the Russian people like it -- to be left alone. Because through bitter experience, they have learned that not to be left alone by government may actually be much worse.

Ironically, Russians in ways have a far more skeptical view of government than Americans, who join advocacy and lobbying groups and associations in droves, to get a larger piece of the economic pie from a far more responsive and less bureaucratic American goverment.