When in Doubt, Blame Russia
This article was written in late May 2018 for an English class.
2017 marked the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Communism, a previously obscure ideology, became law in the world’s largest country besides the European colonial empires. Since the institution of the Soviet government, Russia and the United States have been at odds. Although the two nations fought alongside each other in the Second World War, this was an alliance emerging out of tactical necessity more than anything. Soviet and American values were diametrically opposed. The United States stood for capitalism, freedom, and progress. The Soviet Union stood for communism, state control, and order.
It could be argued that this alliance only made tensions between the nations greater. Both nations knew they were powerful and sought to become the sole global superpower in the inevitable postwar power vacuum. At the conclusion of the war, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Japan is close in proximity to Russia and it is reasonable that the Soviet Union felt threatened by the United States’ display of power in this bombing. The Russians interpreted the bombing as a display of America’s power and geopolitical supremacy. Tensions between the two nations grew after their alliance of necessity fulfilled its purpose, ultimately leading to the Cold War and a half-century long global struggle for dominance.
Any American who grew up between the 1940s and the 1990s would remember the constant fear of a Russian attack and the massive tension that existed between the nations. Americans and Russians were sworn enemies, representing the central powers of the West and the East, respectively. American action movies often depicted stereotypical Russians as supervillains, with large fur hats, bottles of vodka, and Kalashnikov assault rifles. Rocky IV and Red Dawn are staples of American cinematic culture from the 20th century and both portray Russians as mechanical, inhuman supervillains, bent on the destruction of all that is good. The threat of nuclear war was a constant thought in the back of every person’s mind. Very few politicians were sure whether a peaceful resolution would be found to the Cold War as new proxy wars erupted across the globe seemingly every day. It appeared to be only a matter of time until America and Russia directly engaged in a deadly conflict.
Naturally, due to the omnipresent fear in their childhoods, many of those 20th century-raised Americans distrust Russia today, even though the Soviet Union is now mere history. This distrust is felt in modern politics, as new allegations of election interference, authoritarianism, and violations of international law emerge seemingly every day. Americans are quite comfortable blaming Russia for any of their problems, as this has been the case for many issues in the past century and has become as much a part of American culture as hamburgers and hot dogs. The reason that Russia may act antagonistically towards the United States is because of the US’ hostile attitude towards Russia. If Americans were to forget their past prejudices against Russia and approach the superpower nation as a potential ally, then much could be accomplished in terms of growing the countries’ economies and many crises in areas like Ukraine or Syria could be averted. International relations would be changed in an unprecedented way.
The Editorial Board of the New York Times, in their article, “Tough Action on Russia, at Last, but More Is Needed,” applauded President Trump for taking action against Russia by expelling Russian diplomats from the United States. They expressed their hope that “Mr. Trump may finally be forced to deal with the threat that Mr. Putin poses to the United States.” However, there is no specific mention of a threat at all, besides activities that Russia has been accused of but not convincingly convicted and are still not as harmful to the United States as they may seem. Russia has no reason to attack the United States. From a diplomatic standpoint, seriously attacking America would result in Russia losing its status in the United Nations as well as receiving crippling economic sanctions. It would make no strategic sense for Russia to attack America. The two nations feed off the power of one another and exist in a symbiotic economic relationship that affects the entire world. Any worsening of the relations between the two countries could be catastrophic for the balance of power in the world. By taking a more reserved position towards Russia, President Trump would be less vulnerable to any political moves by Putin and he would hold more leverage over relations as a suggesting friend rather than a thwarting enemy.
Even in the case that a serious threat from Russia did exist, it would be unwise for President Trump to provoke Russia. If Russia had the capability of causing serious harm to the United States, wouldn’t it be wise for America to approach Russia in a calm and mature way instead of pointing accusatory fingers in every which direction? Angering Putin surely would not convince him to stand down. Another article by the New York Times Editorial Board, “Why Is Trump So Afraid of Russia?,” reinforces the opinion that America should be aggressive in dealing with Russia. The article even suggests that President Trump, more or less the most powerful man in the entire world, is afraid of Russia. The writers justify tougher action against Russia by saying, “Mr. Putin has become an increasingly authoritarian leader who has crushed most of his political opposition.”
While this is true, if anything, this fact argues for the other side. If President Putin is known for his harsh political gaming, then it would be futile for the US, a relatively transparent and bona fide nation, to engage in his political games. Instead, the US should approach Putin with mutual benefit in mind. Sanctioning Russia and insulting Russia will not accomplish much at all, and would in fact only give Russia more incentive to attack America. Pressing the diplomatic “restart button” with Russia would allow the US to have more control over its actions. Russia would rather listen to an ally than an enemy, just like any other nation.
The ultimate goal of people calling for tougher action against Russia is peace with Russia. They believe that by pressuring Russia harder and blaming Russia for international controversies, Russia will capitulate and reform. This is like assuming that kicking a beehive enough times will result in the bees submitting to one’s every will. It’s absurd. Russia will only seek peace with the United States if the US first seeks peace with Russia and does not make it out to be an enemy.
A major American criticism of the Russian government is its involvement in Syria. Russia is blamed for creating conflict and supporting the Syrian government which has launched chemical attacks against its own citizens.
The US has made it clear that its primary goal in Syria is to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Since its entry into the region, America has come to support the primary rebel group in Syria and get itself entangled in a foreign conflict with little to no effect on the United States itself. If the United States were serious about its mission to defeat ISIS, it would see that a tactical alliance with Russia and the Syrian government would be necessary. Both Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are committed to defeating ISIS, some might say more so than America. In the image to the left, crowdsourced from Wikipedia, it can be seen that the nation has essentially been divided into two parts — the northeast and the southwest.
Besides a few pockets of Syrian government control and a unified Kurdish force to the north, in July 2014, ISIS had comfortable control of the northeast sector. However, in the southeast the borders were not as defined. The Syrian government controlled much of the eastern part of that sector, but the vital trade area near the Mediterranean was in heavy conflict. This conflict forced the Syrian government to divert its resources to fighting US-backed rebels in the west instead of fighting ISIS in the east. The lack of US, Syrian, and Russian attention to ISIS because of the civil war in the west was harmful to the ultimate goals of every party involved, except ISIS of course.
The US decided to prioritize their moral mission of bringing democracy to Syria over defeating ISIS. While this may appear noble, the reality is that neither of those goals would end up getting accomplished. To the modern day, there continues to be a civil war and ISIS continues to be a threat. If the US had instead formed a temporary alliance with Russia and Syria to fight ISIS, the rebel group would have begun to fail and ISIS would have been nearly eradicated. The newfound stability after ISIS’ collapse would have then allowed for more effective inquiries into the validity of the Syrian government. America’s opposition to Russia in the Syrian conflict has not led to any greater moral outcome but instead has increased the violence in Syria and amounted to nothing more than ineffectual virtue signalling. The United States must never again let its assumed notions of moral correctness get in the way of accomplishing its goals. In “U.S.-Backed Coalition in Syria Strikes Pro-Assad Forces,” by Anne Barnard and Richard Pérez-Peña for the New York Times, the authors quote a Russian government official as saying, “We were invited by the government of Syria to fight terrorists since 2015. The U.S. was never invited to Syria. So who is the aggressor, tell me?” The United States has the perspective that it is inherently right in its foreign interventions, but examination of different perspectives suggests otherwise. If the United States had allowed Russia to act in Syria without opposing its every move, perhaps ISIS would be eradicated and the Syrian government stabilized.
In an op-ed for the Huffington Post, “Russia Should Be Our Ally,” French politician Jacques Attali argues that much of the West’s opposition to Russia comes from misunderstanding or confusion. He says, in regards to the Ukrainian conflict, that it is only fair for Russia to want to protect politically underrepresented Russian-speakers in Ukraine. However, the conventional wisdom in the West, he argues, is that Russia wants Ukraine as a base from which to attack Poland or the Baltics to expand its empire. It is this misunderstanding of what Russia’s agenda might be that causes many nations to inherently oppose any action by Putin’s government. If the West, led by the United States, can overcome the preconceived notion that Russia is always acting in malevolent interests, then many violent conflicts around the world could be resolved and the global economy could boom.
While many Americans may feel that it is the principled thing to always take a hardline stance against authoritarian nations, this is usually not the wisest course of action. Having grown up with the Soviet Union as the ultimate enemy, many adult Americans feel strongly against Russia and feel compelled to see that nation as the enemy. What America must do to reassert its undisputed superpower status and make steps towards world peace is extend an offer of friendship towards Russia and forget the nations’ troubled history. Friendship rather than accusation will make Putin more likely to be cooperative with America and will lead to the quick resolution of many global conflicts such as that in Syria. Insulting and attacking an authoritarian may seem like the rational course of action, but in reality it will cause more harm than good and in fact perpetuate global threats. Americans must not be prejudiced in global politics and instead must think rationally to create the best possible outcomes for America.
Works Cited
Attali, Jacques. “Russia Should Be Our Ally.” Huffington Post, Oath, www.huffingtonpost.com/jacques-attali/russia-should-be-our-ally_b_6667982.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Barnard, Anne, and Richard Pérez-Peña. “U.S.-Backed Coalition in Syria Strikes Pro-Assad Forces.” New York Times, New York Times Company, 8 Feb. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/world/middleeast/syria-us-assad.html. Accessed 3 May 2018.
Di Giovanni, Janine. “Is Trump Sowing the Seeds for ISIS 2.0?” New York Times, New York Times Company, 6 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/trump-isis-syria-russia.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
The Editorial Board. “Tough Action on Russia, at Last, but More Is Needed.” New York Times, New York Times Company, 26 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/russia-sanctions-banks.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
The Editorial Board. “Why Is Trump so Afraid of Russia?” New York Times, New York Times Company, 21 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/opinion/donald-trump-russia-putin.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Horowitz, Evan. “How a Trump-Putin Alliance Would Change the World.” Boston Globe, Boston Globe Media Partners, 5 Dec. 2016, www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/12/05/how-trump-putin-alliance-would-change-world/WRBbyzjIfHCs4xYOyKv7wL/story.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Hubbard, Ben. “Dozens Suffocate in Syria as Government Is Accused of Chemical Attack.” New York Times, New York Times Company, 8 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-ghouta.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Rr016. “Situation in Syria (2014).” Wikipedia, 29 Mar. 2018, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Situation_in_Syria_%282014%29.svg. Accessed 24 May 2018. Map.