Wrong on Russia, Again
Name this country: It is a regime that spies on it's own citizens, that has no regard for civil liberties, and that seeks to bend the letter of the law beyond any recognition of the spirit. It is an administration suspicious of a free and independent press, and accordingly, it seeks to manage and control the media. In foreign policy, it pursues an aggressive unilateral agenda through bullying and coercion--sometimes even using military force against sovereign nations--especially where energy resources are concerned. It cares little for international law except when it can be used in its favor. It readily supports despotic rulers of strategically important countries and is prepared to undermine democratically elected leaders of countries that don't submit to its will. Under it's rule, big corporate interests have come to dominate politics to the exclusion of anything that can be called genuinely democratic. And its political elite have openly declared their desire to become a permanent majority party, rubber stamping any policy the president promotes.
The answer is not Russia, but the United States of America.
Okay, so my gambit is not so subtle, but how else could I illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of Dick Cheney's recent polemical tour across Eastern Europe, during which he turned up the rhetorical heat on Russian President Vladimir Putin. For regular Russia watchers, this was a disturbing crescendo to what has been a steady escalation in hard-line rhetoric against Russia. Even if you don't closely follow Russian-American relations, this invective should have come as a surprise. It certainly has left me scratching my head, wondering what Cheney's motive was. More importantly, it has me deeply concerned that, once again, the Bush Administration is leading the United States into a flawed and dangerous foreign policy stance.
The New York Times was quick to criticize Cheney in a May 9th editorial. But even their analysis shows just how faulty U.S. understanding of Russia is. In its otherwise dead-on criticism of the vice president, The Times writes, "Vladimir Putin has indeed reversed the democratizing course set, however clumsily and incompletely, by Boris Yeltsin, and he is using Russia's vast reserves of oil and gas as tools of intimidation and blackmail."
Something is amiss, and it's time to sort things out.
Several factors could explain Vice President Cheney's outburst. The most obvious and simplest answer is that the White House really believes that Russia is backsliding on democracy and that Putin hopes to concentrate power as a new post-post-Soviet despot. Another possibility is that this is part of a foreign policy maneuver to put the pressure on Russia and make it cooperate on preventing Iran's nuclearization. Finally, it is possible that the neoconservatives are uncomfortable with the idea of a Russia that is regaining its strength after two decades at the brink--challenging the hegemonic status quo. Or, it could be some combination of the above.
Whatever the reason, we still have to ask ourselves why the image of the aggressive, threatening Russia persists nearly sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Dick Cheney's not the only one guilty of perpetuating prejudices. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times and even my beloved NPR seem intent on showing a very one-sided picture of Russia's transformation. This myth of Russia's resurgent authoritarianism is very disturbing, and this latest episode with Cheney is just the the culmination of six years of U.S. press and politicos painting a portrait of Putin as the brooding and devious new Stalin--bent on concentrating power in his own hands and destroying Russia's democracy. Alas, the U.S. media and talking heads very seldom get much about Russia right these days, especially when the facts don't fit into the Putin-as-Dictator archetype that they've created.
Most Russians are baffled that the Cold War lingers on in the mind of U.S. policymakers. So much has changed so quickly in their country since 1991. Though a few hardliners in certain Russian agencies may maintain their suspicions, Russians on the whole have long thought of the United States as an ally. How insulting that a country which they consider a friend continues to treat them as little children.
Most Russians are confused by the headlines they see coming out of the United States. (And unlike their American counterparts, Russians actually pay attention to press other than their own.) They should be confused; it's atrocious journalism, and it paints an over-simplified and inaccurate picture of what is really happening Russia. Anyone who has had any firsthand exposure to Russia should know that nothing in Russia is black-or-white. Things are always more complicated than they seem.
The overwhelming majority of Russian's feel that Putin is the right man for the job at this point in Russia's development. It is wrong to dismiss public opinion; in fact, it is very much undemocratic. We should give Russians a little bit more credit for being able to form
their own opinions about their domestic politics. Instead we should ask what is the reason for this support.
Putin's popularity is due to his success in bringing stability to Russia--economic and political. The Yeltsin-era ruined Russia. His role as the great democratizer is another Western myth that goes along with historical revisionism similar to those who claim that Reagan alone won the Cold War. Few individuals could have brought Russia from the brink of collapse as well as Putin has. This is not to say that his record is spotless, nor is it to say that Russia is out of the woods. But on the whole, if you look back at where Russia was in 1999 and where it is now...it's an impressive recovery--even with all its many problems. Claims of eroded democratic freedoms are the manufactured result of a relatively small and vocal elite that is not without its own vested interests in discrediting Putin. There are certainly some reasons for concern, but on the whole, I think you would be hard pressed to find that opinion among the public at large. And again, it would be wrong to dismiss that opinion as "brainwashing" or naivete.
Once again, the White House has made a serious, strategic error in its apparent decision to bully Russia. You would think that all those old Cold Warriors among Cheney's staffers would remember this about negotiating with Russia: backing her into a corner is the worst way to get what you want. The harder you push on Russia, the harder she pushes back. If the U.S. really wants Russia as a partner on issues critical to national security--such as Iran's nuclearization and energy security--then antagonism is the wrong approach.
Tags: Russia, Putin, Cheney, New York Times, Yeltsin, democracy, Cold War
Powered by Qumana