There were some rivalries that echo through the annals of history and that pushed the world to become a more advanced better place. These included Greece and Persia; Rome and Carthage; Great Britain and France; and the United States and the Soviet Union. I know some people are trying to make China the next Super Power we can maybe have a rivalry with, but it just doesn’t have the same feel of mutual disdain and mistrust like the good ones.
Maybe it is Human Nature to reminisce about better times, but it truly felt that we were safer when the world was on the brink of nuclear destruction. Everything just had more meaning to it in the old days, a prime example would be the Olympics. There was really truly human drama going on. Everybody watching knew if the Russian figure skater, or gymnast fell or did something to mess up the routine, she was going to get shot for “failing the state”.
Now our Olympic rivalries come in the form of individual events, instead of in terms of most medals won. To underscore this point, Australia is our biggest rival in swimming. Whoopdy frekin do, I mean I like Australia, with its exports of Outback Steakhouse, Fosters beer commercials and crazy wildlife show hosts, but I can’t get geared up to beat them in any kind of competition, they are just not on our level.
It was not only the Olympics that was more riveting, but the Middle East was a much quieter place too. I mean their choices (in their eyes) were: Deal with the Infidel Christian Western Crusaders who pay us good money for oil; or Deal with the Infidel Atheist Communist Soviets who will pay us less money for oil. But the Soviet Union couldn’t just leave well enough alone could they, although it must have been pretty bad if they felt they needed to invade Afghanistan for natural resources, since all they are known for is dirt, opium, and sand.
There is hope for those of us who dream of better times, for Russia is now led by a former KGB agent who understands the need for a new Soviet State. Czar Putin has taken the frail democracy that semi-legitimately existed and has molded what the Russian people truly want, a power on the global stage. Who needs to feed citizens or protect nuclear missile bunkers when you can challenge the United States over having a missile shield?
The Soviet Union was the perfect enemy for the United States to stand against. As an economic system the Soviets believed they would truly win in the long run, therefore they would push militarily when it was advantageous. However, they could be deterred should the advantage not be highly in their favor. In addition it cannot be discounted that the necessity of the state to undermine religious authority, may have also impacted this decision. When one believes either their is no afterlife, or the afterlife they will go to is a warm, they will do what they can to postpone such dismal outlooks.
We were the morally righteous, altogether insensitive but meaning well Americans. We may have “interfered” in a few places but only to make sure that people could be treated as people. At least our heart was in the right place.
That is all that Czar Putin is attempting to do; bring the world to a safer more stable place. The world was never more safe than when it was on the verge of Destruction, and that is why Czar Putin is our greatest hope.
We can put the situation in Russia in terms of a number of different more general trends.
One reason that he Russian people have — to the extent they have — accept a new strong man — an new Czar, as you put it — is the failure of the economic and social reforms that were implimented when the Soviet Union broke up. It would be helpful to see if there is a good study of that period. My own expectation is that such a study would conclude that this is yet another case study of what happens when the objectivist/conservative paradigm is followed. In a land where the government controlled everything, suddenly there was no control; what happened was that the economy was turned over to criminal enterprises. Putin’s totalitarianism is yet another swing of the pendulum against that criminality, though there was some creative dynamic going on there, as well.
As to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. I suggest that the best book to read to understand what is still going on in that part of the world is Rudyard Kipling’s /Kim\. The reality is that Afghanistan has never been valued for what is there, but for what is beyond it. It has the unfortunate fate of being the place between the conquerors and what they want. The plan then was to use Afghanistan and Pakistan as a pathway to the constant goal of the Russians, whether under the czars on the commissars or the businessmen: they were seeking an ice-free, open-water port to be the end point for oil pipelines between the fields in central Asia and the world marketplace.
And guess what? That is exactly what the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and several other cronies of you-know-who have been trying to achieve in the midst of the occupation of Afghanistan and our struggles with the Taliban. Oh, goody.
Finally, on the question of Great Powers. You may not remember the nineties, and the great debates that were going on after the fall of the Soviet empire. There were many at that time who actually missed the good old days of the Cold War, mainly because without an Enemy at the Gates, there were no more excuses for their actions in support of profits and power. The so-called War on Terrorism was a godsend to these people; another excuse to pour money down the rathole of defense contracting, make a frontal assault on the Constitution, and sacrifice everyone else’s safety, security, and prosperity on the altar of corporate profits.
I just attended a seminar on “Alternatives to the Vision of the War on Terror.” The only comment I made there was that they were wasting their time and efforts (but they were getting paid for it, so it can’t have been a waste). There is no vision, no strategy, no goal, no War on Terror to have an alternative to. We have done not one thing in the last decade that has weakened those who harmed us or seek to harm us, or made the country at all more secure. And that is because the purpose of the War on Terror is not this thing they call victory, but to simply excuse their looting of the public treasury, the public reputation, and the public commonweal.
Were either Russia or China to rise to the level of a real threat to us, that would be welcomed by the corporate oligarchy, but neither country is really looking to dominate the globe the way we are, and with the current pr campaign going so well, what do they need with an Enemy they can actually find?
Why tag this in Europe? Russia wouldn’t like being tagged in Europe, or Asia, or probably anywhere but “Russia”, or maybe “Glorious Homeland of the Rus and Assorted Other Peoples, Inheritors of the Greatness of Rome and Byzantium”. That might do.
Unless this preferential tagging is the first salvo in the new Cold War?
While the Russians may maintain they are altogether different from the rest of Europe, their history has always had them looking to the West and be thought of European. Tsar Peter, the man who made modern Russia looked to Europe as what he wanted Russia to be Rich, Powerful, and warm weather ports. Even the name Tsar is Russian for Cesar. So until further notice they be in the Europe category, or should I receive a large sum of money.