IN 1946 a young U.S. diplomat named John Fischer wrote an earnest little book called Why They Behave Like Russians. Fischer, who'd served with the United Nations in postwar Kiev and Moscow, was attempting to explain to a bewildered U.S. public why their wartime ally Joseph Stalin, recipient of billions of dollars in American Lend-Lease aid, had suddenly turned on Washington, declaring it a deadly enemy, and seemed hellbent on starting a Third World War. The book is still a fascinating read"”not least because so many of its conclusions continue to ring true today. Fischer calls Russia's leaders "the scared men in the Kremlin," deeply insecure behind their aggressive bluster and suspicious of any internal political threat to their power. Russia is hostile to the West, he writes, because it is a "wounded giant" traumatized by catastrophic historical upheavals and far weaker than it likes to pretend. The nation, he warns, "may blunder into war as it strives to build up a protective belt of satellite states outside its vulnerable borders." Today, with tensions rising again over two Georgian breakaway regions effectively annexed by Russia last summer, that line rings as true as it did at the dawn of the Cold War.
It's more than a little scary that some 60 years after Fischer published, thinkers in the West are still pondering the same question: why do Russians behave the way they do? Why does President Dmitry Medvedev act like a sober, responsible world leader at a G8 conference, talking about a "new European security architecture," as he did in April, yet at the same time threaten to post missiles on the Polish border in Kaliningrad, as he did in November, which is something not even the Soviets ever dared? And how come Russia has stood alongside the world's democracies by supporting the last two rounds of sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council but also supplies Tehran with billions of dollars' worth of missile-defense systems, a nuclear reactor, and submarines? What is the logic behind what one present-day U.S. diplomat in Moscow not authorized to speak on the record calls "Kremlin bipolar disorder"?
Russia's apparent recalcitrance isn't simply a manifestation of evil or pique; it is a reflection of a particular world view. Talk to Russians today from any walk of life about where they see their country's place in the world and you'll soon hear them use the word "respect." Mention history, and you'll likely hear a lot of blame slung at America for inflicting years of economic hardship and political chaos. No less a figure than the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev complained recently that "the fall of the Soviet Union made America's head spin"”it was as though Russia was no longer significant, no longer a partner, and worthless to America. Then, when Russia was on its knees, when our economy collapsed, Americans came here and applauded the great job Yeltsin had done. We understood something important then: it suited the West for Russia to be half dead."
One word you won't hear Gorbachev or his like use is "humiliation," but it lies beneath such statements and is equally important. Russians suffered intense humiliation in the painful years between 1980 and 2000, as their empire was first defeated in Afghanistan, then turned into an economic basket case, and then collapsed. And they haven't forgotten about it. Middle-aged Russians of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's generation"”who now make up its ruling elite"”grew up being told their country was the greatest in the world. They then spent the best years of their lives watching it implode. And it's not just ex-Soviet hard men like Putin who nurture this sense of grievance; smart young professionals (like Medvedev) share it as well. Small wonder, then, that Russia's quest for respect"”for equality or revenge"”often seems to stray beyond the rational.
Indeed, modern Russia's quest for respect is so intense that it's ensured that it's warped the world view of citizens and policymakers alike, casting everything in 19th-century terms, with winners and losers and enemies in different uniforms. Whether it's planting a flag on the bottom of the sea to claim the North Pole or squeezing the Americans out of a base in Kyrgyzstan, Moscow still sees diplomacy as a zero-sum game where every international engagement"”even supposedly friendly ones like the Eurovision Song Contest"”becomes a litmus test for Russian pride and power. This helps explain Russia's friendships with anti-American regimes in Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. Today's Russia is willing to pal up with anyone, it seems, as long as it bolsters Moscow's credentials as a leader of a "multipolar world."
No battleground is more emotionally charged for contemporary Russians than the lands of their lost empire. In April 2005, on the eve of massive celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, Putin told Parliament that the fall of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" and "a genuine tragedy for the Russian people." Millions of Russians found themselves citizens of different countries, Putin lamented, and the "disease" of separatism spread to Russia itself as Chechnya made a bid to break away. For Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the committee for foreign affairs in the Federation Council, the loss of the empire was as traumatic as a divorce. "We are still in the process of separating from our former husbands and wives," he says. "The rows Russia is having with its neighbors are like scenes from a divorce"”everyone is throwing dishes and breaking furniture." Think about this analogy and it's no surprise that Russians reserve a special resentment for America and Europe, the rich, new sugar daddies for whom their old partners left.
To the Kremlin, many Western policies reek of hypocrisy, and an unwillingness to take Russian views into account. For instance, Russia's decision last year to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states after its war with Georgia"”seen by the West as a way to dismember Georgia and punish its pro--Western president Mikheil Saakashvili for his desire to join NATO"”was seen by Russians as a humanitarian defense of minorities oppressed by Saakashvili. From that perspective, it was similar to NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo to save Albanians oppressed by Serbia"”a move bitterly opposed by Russia. "They don't understand why America can get away with invading Afghanistan and Iraq, can get away with declaring Kosovo a new country"”but when we try to defend our allies in Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgian aggression we are called the bad guys," says one former top Kremlin bureaucrat who requested anonymity when discussing old colleagues.
The truth about Obamacare.
Take NEWSWEEK's incredibly hard news quiz to find out.
Inside the young science of keeping callers on the line. Damn you, Erik Satie.
As an example of Russian neurosis and aggression, the author writes the following of Medvedev: ??? ???yet at the same time threaten to post missiles on the Polish border in Kaliningrad, as he did in November, which is something not even the Soviets ever dared???? Why does the author fail to mention that Medvedev???s ???threat??? was a reaction to the US???s announced intention of building a missile shield in Poland? This entire article is ridiculously one-sided and hypocritical.
Excellent article. Idiotic comments. These guys apparently don't understand that collapse of the evil Russian Communist empire in 1991 was an inevitable and a singularly GOOD event. And by supporting this, the US was doing the right thing. In fact, the job is not done. Russia remains an empire, the last colonial power in the world. It still occupies lands which have never been historically, culturally and ethnically Russian. Chechnya - which the Russians rule through routine murders, kidnappings, genocide, is the most visible example. Chechnya, along with Dagestan, Ingushetia, Tatarstan, Tuva and other lands Russians have brutally conquered and continue to occupy must be liberated. Before seeking "respect" the Russians must learn humility. And if they don't learn humility by granting freedomg to the remaining colonies, they must be tought humility in due course by those colonies as well as China...
Owen Matthews is just a talking head.Here are the facts;1. US has military bases in the former Soviet Union2. It supports militarily and financially most of those former states3. Trains their military, and we have prove because we have a few Humvees in our possession. I wonder how they got to Georgia!4. US is planning to place missiles in Poland, which is what, like 8-10 times zones away from homeI can go on, but anyone with common sense understands what I am trying to say.Owen Matthews is a idiot.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Read Full Article »