… sed magis amica veritas, goes the ancient saying, a Latin paraphrase of what Aristotle said in Greek (“Plato is my friend, but truth is a greater one”). It’s in that spirit of friendly and regretful criticism that I’ll comment on the Russian émigré press and the United States.
The former has never denied column inches to the latter, and it’s now even more generous than ever. Understandably so, because the anti-Putin publications are still abuzz with comments on that interview.
Most writers accuse Putin of playing fast and loose with Russian history, and Carlson of being too ignorant of it to make that point, not to mention too sycophantic. All of that is as true as it is beside my point today.
For much to my chagrin I have to remark that most of those commentators are as ignorant about the West as Carlson is about Russia. That’s most unfortunate, especially since the West is where most of them live now.
Moreover, they use the West in general and the USA in particular as the gold standard Russia fails to meet, and again there’s no objection in these quarters. Indeed, the US is a much better country than Russia any way you look at it, and so she offers much to learn. However, if in the process those commentators falsify American history to make their point, they do more harm than good.
The only proper response to falsifications of history is the truth, not other, contradicting falsifications. Thus it’s true that American history is more benign than Russian. But it’s not true that American history is as white as those commentators are painting it.
By way of illustration, I’ll focus on today’s article by Andrei Nikulin, which is, regrettably, typical of those publications. Mr Nikulin is commenting on Putin’s outrageous claim that Russia attacked the Ukraine because she had to, with NATO having left her no other choice.
To wit: “An important part of justifying Russia’s actions in this imperial conflict is a question constantly asked: What would the US do if a hostile state appeared on her borders? Empire-hounds assume a supposedly self-evident answer suiting their purposes: probably the same thing Russia is doing now and always has done.”
Those ignoramuses miss the point, says Nikulin. They “cite Mexico as a hypothetical example, but ironically this example works only for those who don’t know the history of North America. For the States used to have such a neighbour, but to the north, not to the south. It was called Canada, and still is.”
Fair enough, continues Nikulin. Britain did use Canada as a base for harassing the US. That’s why America indeed tried to annex that territory in two wars, first during the Revolution, then in 1812. However, a negotiated peace was worked out eventually, which produced an amicable accommodation lasting to this day. “This proves that, in the long run, the way of quiet, dull, long and difficult negotiations turns out to be the most reliable and profitable.”
Be that as it may, words like ‘glass houses’ and ‘stones’ spring to mind. For Nikulin is guilty of the same sin of ignorance he justifiably ascribes to others.
Actually, there was nothing hypothetical about the history of US relations with Mexico. And, though it pains me to point this out, the way America handled those relations wasn’t so drastically different from what Putin is trying to do to the Ukraine.
The US annexed Texas in 1845, thereby bringing slavery to a territory where none had existed until then. The annexation was welcomed by most Texans, but as a result the US inherited the border disputes Texas had with Mexico.
President Polk resolved the situation in a fairly Putinesque way: by attacking Mexico in 1846. The war raged for two years and ended in Mexico’s defeat. As a result she lost 55 per cent of her territory: present-day Texas, California, Nevada and Utah, as well as parts of today’s Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
I’m not going to delve into the complexities of American history now. It’s Russia, not America, that’s my subject in hand. Suffice it to say that, though the US isn’t doing all that well at present, over history the country has shown her ability to ride all sorts of storms, both at home and abroad. There is always hope for America.
That, alas, is more than I can say for Russia. She is currently governed by a frankly evil, fascist regime pouncing on Russia’s neighbours like a rabid dog and threatening to embroil the whole world in a cataclysmic conflict. Moreover, one can’t discern much in Russian history, especially that of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st, that would encourage an optimistic outlook into the future.
But that, as the Russians say, is only half the trouble. What spells trouble with a capital T is the absence of any realistic opposition, the kind that can combine intellect with courage and resolve to give Russia a brighter future in the post-Putin era.
In the beginning, we are taught, was the Word, which applies equally to sacred and temporal history. A successful physical attack on a way of life (which is what all revolutions worthy of the name are) can only proceed from a solid metaphysical beachhead.
That Russia lacks any sizeable group of potential revolutionaries is visible to the naked eye. But unfortunately she also lacks any profusion of sound thinkers who could give potential revolutionaries a bouncy springboard.
The émigré press is trying to find a viable alternative to Putinism in the pages of The New York Times, The Guardian and Le Monde, which are the last places where it could be found. Regurgitating woke platitudes that are even more alien to the Russians than to Westerners isn’t going to make Putin run scared.
Desperately needed is a political philosophy blending together everything usable in Russian history and everything useful in Western history. But mindless borrowing of faddish Western fallacies has already done much harm in Russia from the 18th century onwards, and it will do more if the Russians aren’t careful.
They need to analyse the history of the West deeply and dispassionately to see what has and hasn’t worked, and also what saplings could conceivably bear fruit if transplanted into the Russian soil. The starting point of such analysis is understanding based on knowledge. Alas, both are in short supply, and the article under review is only one proof among many.
I read an analysis on a Catholic web site of the Carlson-Putin interview – very disappointing. Does anyone honestly think NATO threatens the Soviet Union (sorry, Russia)? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland joined NATO. They were not assimilated or invaded. Ukraine, Georgia, and Sweden have asked to join. They are not being forced. They are free instead to join whatever organization will keep them safe from Western aggression. They did not consider that? There is no such organization? Interesting. It’s almost as if some countries see Russia as a threat to their independence. I don’t believe any of these countries thought once they are in NATO they will launch their attack on Russia.
P.S. I started reading Strictly English last night. Thank you for the recommendation.