Reigniting Another Cold War?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The United States and Russia (then the dominant state of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, also known as the Soviet Union) were in a state of prolonged tensions, known as the Cold War, for many decades. It lasted from immediately after the end of World War II, until the late 80's and early 90's, when revolutions began that spread throughout eastern Europe by late 1989 and went a long way towards thawing the "Cold War". The final episode of the end of the Cold War came two years later, when Gorbachev officially dissolved the Soviet Union.

I grew up as a Cold War kid myself. No, it was not the earlier version, or the "hot" phase of the Cold War, when school children had drills to hide underneath their desks in the event of some kind of nuclear war, as if that would have done anything. It was not during the days of Kennedy and Khruschev, and the Cuban Missile Crisis and hammering shoes in the United Nations, proclaiming threatening to bury the other.

Still, it was the Cold War. The Soviet Union was in Afghanistan, and Reagan regularly blasted the communist threat, calling the Soviet Union "the evil empire". He advocated a "Star Wars" program that the Soviets were vehemently opposed to, and he went to Berlin and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." And it certainly was not just the White House that felt this was, but the American people as a whole. The Soviets were regularly featured as bad guys in movies, books, and television programs. Why, there was a rerun of Rocky IV just last evening, with the sinister Ivan Drago, and the team that he had supporting him. All of them were from the Soviet Union, and they all fit the classical stereotype for very bad guys. Many Americans expressed fear, anger, and extreme skepticism when it came to anything to do with the Soviet Union/Russia. I even had a history teacher in the 8th grade that spoke about the Russians/Soviets as the bad guys, while we Americans were, in his sow, deliberate words, "the good guys...in the white hates." He kind of straightened out his imaginary Lone Ranger hat as he said this. Also, I remember him talking about how Reagan was set to visit the Soviet Union, and how terrible it would be if he walked into a trap, somehow. Of course, that didn't happen.

I remember when Gorbachev came into power, and no one knew what to expect from him. Of course, I was young, so my own understanding at the time was extremely limited. But Gorbachev seemed different. Kinder, less threatening, somehow. The western media rejoiced. Gorbachev was a reformer, yet I remember all of the skepticism from Americans, that this talk of reform was just a front, a facade, and that the true intent of the Soviets could not really be known, let alone trusted. As it turns out, though, Gorbachev truly was interested in reform.

When Boris Yeltsin came in, many were overjoyed by the prospect, because he was friendly to the United States and the West. Also, his country was on it's knees, and needed all the help that it could get. So, this leader of a former superpower seemed like a refreshing alternative to Soviet-era leaders. I remember my father marveling when Clinton and Yeltsin were standing together, cracking up (at what, I don't remember). He was amazed that such genuinely warm feelings could exist between the leaders of former rival superpowers, so shortly after the Cold War.

I now find myself marveling in much the same way about how quickly things could grow so bad again between two countries that seemed, at that time, to be building such friendly relations. That event took place, I believe, during Clinton's second term in office. Yet, very quickly, relations between the countries soured considerably.

It seemed to happen when Putin first came to power. Once again, people were viewing a Russian leader with pure skepticism, and claiming that Russia was taking a step backwards.

Indeed, there were dictatorial tendencies with Putin. But that said, he did not seem nearly as bad as the most feared leaders from the Soviet-era, particularly Stalin. And, for that matter, he started moving Russia in a solid direction - towards improvement. He just did it without relying strictly on the West in order to do so, and I suspect that many Western leaders, political and economic, as well as many in the media, were less than thrilled with this, and at every turn, trying to discredit the man and his policies.

But Putin's approach worked. Russia went from a struggling country just trying to get off it's knees after the end of the Cold War, to once again, being on the brink of superpower status, seemingly. Oh, I know that they are not quite there yet. Still, it seems that they are punching much harder than their weight in terms of making news headlines, aren't they? Some suggest that Putin saved Obama's presidency last summer, by giving him a way out of what seemed to be a militaristic stance.

That, of course, is completely unacceptable to conservative leaders, who take Putin and Russia as an affront to the United States. Even though it is highly doubtful that a Republican President - had it been John McCain or Mitt Romney, would have approached this in a significantly different manner. Still, they talk the talk, obviously trying to mold the story so that the fault is squarely on Obama's shoulders, while they try to capitalize on this for the next election cycle.

Of course, Russians have noticed all of this, and are responding to American hostilities and lingering hang-ups towards them, perhaps left overs from the Cold War. And, quite predictably, they have responded with not so subtle threats.

A Russian diplomat, Surgei Glasyev, has warned about what might happen if the United States does indeed place sanctions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine last week. Russia could reduce dependency on the United States to "zero", and this could lead the already vulnerable American economy to a "crash".

And now, the war on words continues, as no less a prominent, even towering, figure in the American political landscape as Hillary Clinton has raised eyebrows by essentially comparing Putin to Hitler, although she quite adeptly denied it, almost in the same breath. According to an article by Michael Blood of the Associated Press (see link below):

"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe." 

"I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, certainly. But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."

On some level, she does have a point. The claim that Putin and those Russians advocating intervention in the Ukraine based on the premise of protecting ethnic Russians there does bear some resemblance to Hitler and the Nazis pretext of going into other countries under the premise of protecting ethnic Germans there.

But comparing the situation today with World War II, and particularly in comparing Putin and his Russian government to Hitler and the Nazis, is not the best way to go.  First of all, Russia's actions in the Ukraine thus far have been limited to the Crimea. Also, the former Soviet Union fought the bloodiest war in all of human history to first stop, and then beat back the Nazis all the way back to Germany. They lost over twenty million people in the process, paying a steep price for their victory. During that entire time, the Soviets/Russians were begging the United States and Great Britain - their fellow allies - to open up a western front in the war. It took two and a half years after the US officially entered the war for that western front to finally be opened, during which time future Vice-President and President Truman said that we should wait a while for a western front and not risk too many American lives, in order that the Russians and Germans might bleed each other white.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."   
(Remarks by then Senator Harry S Truman right after hearing the news that Nazi Germany had invaded the Soviet Union - taken from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman)

So, maybe American officials, and particularly one as seasoned politically as Hillary Clinton, should be a little more careful with their choice of comparisons. Comparing Putin to a man that brought absolutely nothing but misery and suffering on an epic level to the Russians is obviously not going to send any sort of positive message. And maybe Hillary should remember, also, that Hitler felt that the German people were outright superior to others, and he absolutely loathed the Russians in particular. Putin might be bad, but to my knowledge, he does not have a racial caste system the way that Hitler did. It is these kinds of remarks, as well as the one that Secretary of State John Kerry said (and which I wrote about) days ago that compromise American credibility in circumstances such as these.

Hillary Clinton did not stop with comparing Russia's action today with those of Nazis in the 1930's. She suggested that Putin was trying to go back in time, and bring back certain parts of the Soviet Union - in particular, the status as superpower. According to the same Michael Blood article:

"Clinton said Putin is trying to "re-Sovietize" the periphery of Russia but is actually squandering the potential of his nation and "threatening instability and even the peace of Europe."

Russia is the new Nazi Germany with one remark, and in the next, Putin is trying to "re-Sovietize" Russia, or at least on the periphery?

I'm not even entirely sure at this point what Hillary is trying to say, other than that she disapproves of the invasion, and thinks Putin is a bad man. That much is clear. But the rest? Sounds to me like she's trying to look experiences as well as scholarly, while also talking tough in anticipation of her probably Presidential run in 2016. Maybe to sound more typically American, a patriot who is willing to stand up to Putin, and not blink. Perhaps she is trying to allay the inevitable prejudices from male chauvinists who will question if she's tough enough for the White House.

I don't know what the answers are. Putin was wrong to invade the Crimea, and wrong to threaten the rest of the Ukraine, as well. But American "leaders" seem intent on profiting politically from this, as well. From George W. Bush to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton, it appears that all of these "leaders" do indeed want to resume another Cold War with Russia. For that matter, it seems that far too many Americans are ready to pick up right where they left off with the Cold War, as well, with all of those "In Soviet Russia" jokes.

As if there were not enough problems in this world, we keep allowing leaders to divide us from greater understanding. This is true both in Russia and in the United States, and it is true pretty much everywhere else in the world, as well.





The following articles proved very helpful in writing this blog entry. Here are the links:

"Russia warns could 'reduce to zero' economic dependency on US" by the Associated Foreign Press, March 4, 2014:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-could-reduce-zero-economic-dependency-us-083926261.html?vp=1




"Clinton Again Blasts Putin After Her Hitler Remark" by Michael R. Blood, Political Writer for the Associated Press (through ABC News), March 5, 2014:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-compares-putin-actions-hitlers-22785824