Mediaboss Marketing

In 1947, a book by John Fischer of Harpers Magazine was published and titled Why They Behave Like Russians. The book was an insightful look into Soviet culture, but it was a disappointment that the book did not stress that the communists were Russians first and foremost.

The more recent 1983 book The New Diplomacy by the late Israeli scholar and diplomat Abba Eban makes the point that Soviet aggression was more a Russian trait than communist. My problem with Ebans point is he intended his observation to be assuring, implying we had little to fear from Russian communism.

As we have learned in recent months, it is hardly a comfort that the aggression has proven to be more Russian than communist. Though we have since celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is clear our enthusiasm was premature. Indeed, President Putin of Russia poses a greater threat to peace than had either Khrushchev or Brezhnev.

That is saying a lot, especially when considering that this was the same Nikita Khrushchev who launched a brutal invasion of Hungary in 1956 and pushed President Kennedy to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Crisis of 1961. It was also the same Leonid Brezhnev who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Alas, Putin is worse.

Indeed, Putin is the most aggressive and authoritarian leader of Russia since Stalin (for whom Putin has on record expressed admiration).

Even were Putin able to completely subjugate Ukraine (which is his aim), his empire would not be as large as was the Soviet Unions. But Putins ambitions do not stop at Ukraine. The Russian despot envisions a return to the Cold War map with Russia incorporating Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, it is Putin who proclaimed the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst catastrophe of the 20th century.

Sphere of Influence is a term we have heard often in reference to Vladimir Putins designs on Central and Eastern Europe. Putin has used the term as if it legitimizes his territorial ambitions. The term dates back to the Helsinki Accords in 1975 when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger led the West into conceding Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. Kissinger had reassured President Gerald Ford that the the Helsinki Accords did not have the sway of a treaty.

But that is not how the Soviets saw it. Brezhnev considered the Helsinki Accords his crowning achievement and very much viewed the accords to have validated Soviet domination of Central and East Europe.

Putin seeks to recover that domination and he believes he can do it. Unfortunately, the United States and the West lack a current strain of leadership to emphasize to Putin that his ambitions are unacceptable.

President Biden was right when he proclaimed in Poland that Putin cannot remain in power. But Biden has since backed off his legitimate call for a regime change in Russia. Biden has only made clear the circumstances in which he will not engage Russia, which includes most scenarios.

Back to the Russian trait, whereas communism in its pure form discourages nationalism, all of the communist movements of the 20th century contained a heavy strain of nationalism. Stalin claimed a Russian background and Trotsky also took pride in his self image as a Russian. The irony is that neither was Russian. Stalin was Georgian and Trotsky was Jewish.

But it is instructive to consider the history of nationalism within the ranks of communism to understand the modern specter of Putin. How far Putin is able to expand the empire of which he dreams remains to be seen. What also remains to be seen is to what degree Putin will carry out his agenda before Biden mounts serious resistance.

John ONeill is an Allen Park freelance writer. He has a degree in history from Wayne State University.

Read this article:
As the war rages, Russia is still Russia - Southgate News Herald