It’s bad enough that the United States criticizes Russia’s elections, the methods it uses against Islamic extremists in Chechnya, and the peaceful sharing of power between Putin and his successor Medvedev, but now certain voices in the government are implying that there’s something wrong with Russia’s celebration of its victory over Nazi Germany by having a military parade. Consider the context: this was the worst, most bloody war in world history, and the Russians bore the brunt of that bloodshed, losing some 23 million people, including 11 million civilians. Further, even with the various horrors of life under the Soviet Union, the Soviet state was powerful and taken seriously on the world scene until 1989. People held down by Soviet reality could take some pride in the nation’s collective power, particularly as private life improved during the Gorbachev era. In the 1990s, under a decade of weak leadership by President Yeltsin, the Russia military went into a state of disrepair, and the Russian state became a laughing stock–a land of prostitutes, fraudsters, selfish oligarchs, military weakness, disappearing pensions, and poverty.
Today life in Russia is good, the military is strong, the economy is improving, and birth-rates are rising. In other words, life is better after Putin’s rule than before, and the nation–full of patriotic people who have always held the military in high esteem–enjoys seeing the military on display, replete with sophisticated weaponry in a state of good repair, operated by troops in a state of discipline and good order.
Interpreting this as “saber-rattling” is a typical misreading of reality by folks schooled in the high theory of foreign policy structural realism. Structural realism takes little account of a nation’s domestic life. It postulates that all states everywhere are aiming for maximum power; it does not matter if a nation is a democracy or dictatorship, nor does it matter that it has ideological and cultural attachments and predispositions. Labeling oversimplified models with fancy names does not make them any more useful; unfortunately, this kind of “crib sheet” thinking is common among Bush’s neoconservative advisers, who studied under the high priests of foreign policy structural realism at the University of Chicago.
There’s a simple truth that too much education can obscure from observers: people like a good parade, particularly when it honors a nation’s military that defeated the Nazis against great odds and after great losses. Americans, who have many criticisms of their own government, have a similarly positive view of the military as the most effective and least self-interested government institution. To look at a parade as an international affairs provocation is a typical misreading of events, though not a surprising one, considering our government’s misunderstanding of the Iraqi people, the nature of the Kosovo terrorist state, and the likely outcome of democracy in the Palestinian Authority.
The prominent display of Soviet symbols does deserve mention. What does it mean? One thing it does not mean is that Soviet-style communism, aggression, and human rights violations are making a comeback. There is no doubt that Putin and Medvedev have rejected Soviet-style control over the economy and the civil society of the Russian people. Private businesses and religious life are enjoying a renaissance. The Russian solution is not the same balancing act of liberty and order as we enjoy in the United States, but neither is that of France, Germany, and the UK, all of whom routinely prosecute conservatives for trumped up charges of “racist” speech. Putin’s positive display of Soviet symbols is part of a broader attempt at national reconciliation. Putin, to his credit, has embraced the type of solution to national strife employed by de Gaulle after WWII and northern Americans after Reconstruction. That is, he emphasizes those honorable parts of the Soviet past, particularly the strength of its military against the Nazis, while simply setting aside the moral meaning of state control of the economy, the suppression of Russian nationalism, and other evils. This narrative is analogous to the universal recognition of the honor and bravery of the Confederate soldier in America from, say, 1876-1960. In other words, Putin knows that it’s simply too much to ask a man to piss on his father’s grave and for a nation to declare one third or more of its people criminals. Pride, order, patriotism, and normalcy are paramount, even at the expense of historical accuracy. He’s sought to synthesize the symbols of the pre-revolutionary Russian nation, Soviet military power, and the universal desire for peace and prosperity in the public life and symbology of the new Russia.
Much of modern foreign policy concerns itself with criticizing other nations’ internal affairs, even as diplomats and analysts are steeped in a theory that studiously avoids serious understanding of the character of the world’s peoples and their domestic politics.
Subscribe To This Feed
Why it is so hard to get simple common sense like this anywhere else?
It is not complicated, yet it seems impossible for anyone to put things into reasonable perspective.
Thanks.
Mr. Roach
That Putin has restored the Russian people’s sense of pride at all is a cause for alarm in some quarters. Little matter the means by which this wholesome state is arrived at the horror is in the state existing at all. They fail to consider the alternative, a nuclear armed failed state, fractious, embittered and hopeless. The sad truth is that our elites are more dangerous and self-serving than the apparatchiks and party bosses of the Soviet Unions waning days.
I agree that the controversy over a military parade is a little overwrought, but after all, there were more people murdered under the Hammer & Sickle than under the Swastika. Don’t you think there should be just a little sense of shame at displaying the Hammer & Sickle prominently? Couldn’t they have stuck to regimental banners and such? Granted, they probably included the Hammer & Sickle as well, but at least then the symbolism wouldn’t be quite so overt.
I’ll admit to having a little soft spot for Putin as well, but you have to admit this is a little scary. He’s an authoritarian leader that doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the cruelty and evil of the regime his government replaced.
Would you feel the same way if we were talking about an authoritarian German leader that prominently displayed the Swastika and talked about the glory years of the Third Reich? Wait, don’t answer that.
To Roach’s readers: I was just kidding with that last line. He is most definitely not a Nazi sympathizer (despite whatever he tells you about Reinhard Heydrich).
Well, consider the way the FDR and the Bundeswehr rehabilitated themselves in the 1950s. In the early Cold War, we kind of let the Germans absolve themselves by pinning the blame for atrocities on Hitler, the SS, and a smallish number of extremists. This was wildly inaccuarate, but better that than another decade of blood-letting against every lowly corporal that took part in a firing squad against “bandits” on the Eastern Front.
I don’t think this is necessary scary, any more than the rise of pulp war story literature in Germany in the 1950s, i.e., Guy Sajer’s *Forgotten Soldier.* It remains to be seen how much Soviet nostalgia there is; I think most Russians think today is much better than the Soviet times and the run-amuck “capitalism” of the 1990s.
I wouldn’t say the Germans absolved themselves of blame. In fact, they have taken on a huge collective sense of guilt. The problem is that the younger generation tries to reduce the sting of it by treating Nazism simply as a phenomenon of nationalism that happened to hit the German people, rather than recognizing that Nazism was in some ways uniquely German.
That’s one of the reasons why their youth so freely level accusations of Nazism at the U.S. or Israel, and why they have such trouble coming to terms with healthy German patriotism. To be nationalistic, the thinking goes, starts you on a straight path to Nazism.
But that is beside the point. Germany was very careful to expunge the symbols of Nazism from its past and clearly disown and apologize for its past. While the circumstances in Russia are quite different, particularly since we are talking about a regime that lasted much longer and a country that wasn’t physically conquered, we can’t expect the same level of expunging. At the same time, I think it’s legitimately concerning that the current authoritarian leader of Russia decries the passing of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy and prominently displays the Hammer and Sickle.
Does that mean we should mass troops on the Georgian border or unnecessarily antagonize Russia? No, but I think it is quite clear that Putin is a potentially dangerous foreign leader who deserves a fair-sized helping of American skepticism and wariness.
Until Putin, many Russians were beginning to look back upon the “stability” of the USSR…as they saw it with nostalgia. Persoonally, I would have been more comfortable with fewer hammer an sickle displays. However….
How long have the stars and bars been popular in some parts of this country?
I am concerned that Mr. McCain seems to have a great deal of hostility towards Russia. I see no reason to shed American blood for Georgia or the Ukraine. Isn’t Iraq and Afghanistan enough!?
Bush’s neoconservative advisors decry Soviet trappings simply because they have proscribed that anything Russia does is bad. In reality, Russia is so judged not for what it does, but what it is: a potential counter to America’s creaky status as sole super power. Add to that Russia’s rough treatment of the vampiric oligarchs – connected to our ruling elite by business and ethnic cohesion – and you’ve got a real villain in the making. Who can doubt the neocons have a secret, filmy thrill at seeing the old Marxist gimcracks on display again?
Good post holmes. The saber rattlers are a bit miffed that Russia would have the temerity to put on display its military power. Doesn’t the U.S. do that every single day? With a 2-front war and a military presence in 130 countries, isn’t it a bit hypocritical?
There are grand designs on the Caspian oil reserves that Russia seeks to exert an interest in. With the NATO missile shields being erected in Poland, Russia has every reason to be concerned about its ability to defend its economy and national security.
[...] The New Russian Nationalism (It’s Not that Bad) [...]