IS VLADIMIR’S RUSSIA MORE WORTHY OF TRUST THAN WAS NIKITA’S?

By Edwin Cooney

Let’s see now! We won the Cold War just about 27 years ago in 1991 when the bottom dropped out of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. Next came the colorful and democratically oriented Boris Yeltsin, the NKVD or KGB were defanged, and free enterprise blossomed. (No one can say for certain how free Russian Federation business enterprises are!) However, since Christians practice “free enterprise” and Soviet Russia never did, by logical extension free enterprise must be Christian, mustn’t it? Thus ridded of Godless Communism, Russia has become pretty respectable (or perhaps profitable) in the eyes of international corporations.

Even before the election of Donald Trump as our 45th president in November 2016, Russian behavior in Syria and the Ukraine, along with its treatment of some of its antagonists, seems pretty comparable to those of Nikita Khrushchev and two or three of his successors. Hence, we’re left with the task of assessing and evaluating the motives and character of the new Russian Federation, as they pertain to we “…the free.” Specifically, the activities, motives and character of Federation President Vladimir Putin has millions of Americans wondering how he differs from the crude or shrewd round little pig-eyed Mr. K. (Khrushchev was a nasty “Godless Communist” all right, but he was far more entertaining than either Brezhnev or Putin.)

The close of the Cold War was supposed to purify the new government, especially since it was no longer either Godless or Soviet. Its new religion was Capitalism and that’s what most Americans were glad to settle for. Now however “the Russian bear” seems to be as meanly mischievous in foreign relations as “Uncle Joe” Stalin ever was.

Throughout at least the early stages of the Cold War, Americans were convinced, not without reason, that Communist Russia, along with her Chinese and North Korean “conspirators,” were out to conquer the world -- the phrase was “World Domination.” Another stimulus to the ongoing tug-of-war was Nikita Khrushchev’s 1959 declaration that the world Communist movement would soon “bury” western Capitalism.

Millions of Americans interpreted that statement as a near declaration of war. Khrushchev, however, insisted that it was merely a legitimate assertion of the ultimate success of Communism over Capitalism in the minds and hearts of the people.

While both Republicans and Democrats vigorously opposed both the proclaimed and imagined intentions of the Soviets, the Republican Party came across to most Americans as more belligerently anti-Communist than did the Democrats.

For the first 10 or so years following the Christmas Day resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev along with the clear succession of Boris Yeltsin, relations with the new Russian Federation began to seem almost cozy.

During recent years Russia under Vladimir Putin has become increasingly hostile to the idea that Russia can live unmolested alongside independent and free democratic states such as the Ukraine, and just lately, Montenegro, the newest member of NATO.

The heart of my question at the top of this musing is primarily one of perspective since “Soviet Russia” has been replaced by Putin’s Russian Federation. Nonetheless, I think the question forces the respondent to examine the elements of international conflict.

Throughout the Cold War we opposed the Soviets because they sought to maintain their national security by wars of liberation in violation of the legitimate rights of free nations. Another justification, one that motivated millions of Americans even more than her ruthless foreign policy, was her materialistic Godlessness.

Putin’s regime appears to lack the Soviets’ religious malady. It may even be true that religion in the Russian Federation is flourishing in comparison to what it was before 1991. One of the questions therefore is: has Federationist Russia actually become more moral than it was under the Communists?

Second, it appears to this observer that Putin’s Russia is all about business. Business at its best however is mainly about profit. Is profit moral?

Third, who are 21st Century Russia’s allies? Is Bashar al-Assad better, worse or merely equivalent to Mao Tse-tung and Kim Il-sung (Kim Jong-un’s grandfather)?

Third, for over 70 years FDR has been regarded (especially by Republicans and Conservatives) as the chief appeaser of Russia. If you believe he did appease Stalin, was or wasn’t he surpassed last Monday in Helsinki, Finland, by President Trump?

The ultimate question is how do we cope with an antagonist that appears to be increasingly, although not completely, like us?

What’s almost as fascinating is how Republicans who have traditionally been such opponents of “Mother Russia” suddenly find themselves being forced to support their own political leader who apparently is more comfortable with the assurances of a foreign leader than he’s inspired by the warnings of his own intelligence agents. Now he’s invited Mr. Putin to join him in Washington during an election campaign. That brings up still another fascinating question for me that, so far, I’ve heard nobody else ask. Here’s the question:

How many campaigning Republican leaders are looking forward to posing for pictures with Vladimir Putin less than a month before Americans go to the polls?

Despite evidence that she has tampered in our domestic business of politics, something the old Soviets might well have done had they the capacity to do so, is Vlad’s Russia more worthy of our trust than was Nikita’s?

I say absolutely not. What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY