The Cold War is long over, but the United States and Russia are still locked in their old battles. But what if the Americans simply refuse to fight the Russians? Joseph Weisberg tries to answer this question in an article for The Washington Post, noting that the United States itself plays a significant role in this clash. He called on Washington to take a step towards Russia, stop criticizing it for its actions in the domestic field and lift sanctions.
Judging by the evolving conflict in Ukraine, it can be concluded that the Cold War never ended, Weisberg wrote in his article for The Washington Post. In addition, one of the senators recently proposed the use of nuclear weapons against Russia as a preventive measure, the author recalls.
He served in the CIA in 1990, when his colleagues dreamed of destroying the KGB and the entire Soviet Union. This dream, Weisberg explains, was largely driven by endless anti-Soviet statements rooted in American culture during the Cold War. Even after so many years, the vast majority of Americans are still under their influence. That is why they believe that modern Russia is incredibly aggressive.
So even though the Soviet Union disappeared, the struggle between the United States and Russia remains. And this conflict has survived almost all the concepts that nurtured it, which suggests that both sides need an image of the enemy.
The author of the article explores this need. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was impossible in the United States to avoid films, television shows, and books in which the USSR was not depicted in black. Weisberg recalls how at school children hid under their desks to prepare for a Soviet nuclear attack, and their textbooks missed the point of the Soviet Union's efforts and sacrifices to defeat Nazism. But mostly this trend is manifested in the media.
"And although there were brave people who questioned this consensus, noted the social achievements of the Soviet regime, and the support of the Soviet people for its leaders, these voices fell on the fringes of journalism and scientific thought, they were not noticed," Weisberg admits. .
The author of the article realizes how simplistic his view of the "evil empire" was in the years after the collapse of the USSR. In addition, new trends are coming from the post-Soviet space that have changed his views on many things, from Stalinism to the Soviet media. "It became clear to me that the KGB was much more like the CIA than I had imagined."
"In America, we all seem to be stuck in the past. "Just like during the Cold War, we consider ourselves good boys who have fallen victim to an immoral adversary," the author wrote. But this time, Russia, embodied by Vladimir Putin, is seen as an enemy. The general consensus is that Putin wants to restore the glory of the Soviet Union, a dictator who intends to spread the authoritarian Russian system abroad. And although this is true, according to the author of the article, it would be worth adding other colors to this picture if one wants to understand the Kremlin leader's point of view.
As in Soviet times, the role of the United States in the current conflict is not discussed in American society. The author of the article recalls that when Putin came to power, he was open to cooperation with the West: there was no anti-American rhetoric, he wanted to strengthen the Russian economy through trade. He backed the United States when, after the 9/11 attacks, he allowed them to establish bases in Central Asia. This is partly due to the fact that Russia was engaged in the war in Chechnya, which means a common fight against terrorism, but this did not violate the honesty of intentions.
And then, for several years, the United States sought to integrate the former Soviet republics into the West, imposing sanctions on Russia and its interests as punishment for its "bad behavior," both at home and abroad. These were all aggressive moves that any person or country would consider a threat. He therefore proposes that any action by Russia be seen in the context of what the United States has done against Moscow. For example, he acknowledged that US financial support for Russian election observation and human rights groups was interfering in the country's internal affairs.
Weisberg notes that in recent years the intensity of the conflict between Russia and the United States has periodically decreased, but never disappeared for a long time. The United States is penetrating deep into Russia's near abroad, including Ukraine. Different priorities and alliances have placed Russia and the United States on different sides in the Syrian conflict. Every cycle of US elections gives Russia a chance to conduct its own propaganda, and every case of political repression in Russia gives the United States the opposite.
The author of the article discusses what they could do in Washington to end this dangerous confrontation. For example, they could lift sanctions, stop talking about Russia's internal affairs, leave it to solve its own problems. Usually, parties to a conflict make concessions to each other, but this is not the case. Weisberg therefore called on Washington to make a gesture of goodwill and focus on its behavior.
There is no guarantee that this step will force Russia to take a step forward or that it will reduce tensions so much that the situation in Ukraine will cease to be tense. And even if the conflict over Ukraine escalates, the United States will be able to respond in a variety of ways, not only through threats and sanctions, but also by assessing how it has fueled Russia's fears of losing influence over the years. "We have played at least a very important role in increasing hostility between our countries. After all, we cannot control what Russia will do in this long-running conflict. But we can at least try to get out of the fight, "the author concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment