Seeing two people you dearly love fight each other is painful. The feelings aroused are ones of anger and confusion, as you do not know how to react. In any other situation, you would rush to the aid of your loved one, but in this case, who are you to help? You want to continue loving them both and for them to heal the rift between themselves. The current contention between the United States of America and the Russian Federation is for me such a fight, provoking conflicted feelings inside of me. I love neither one of them more or less than the other. I was born and raised in the U.S. I spent my formative years there figuring out who I am and what I believe with plenty of stumbling along the way. It was then in Russia where I found a place for the person I had become. The life I found in Russia suited the Joey that had formed in the U.S. I owe friends and family in both countries for the person I am today and the successes under my belt. It is difficult to read the news, see the lists of sanctions adopted by the United States and Europe, knowing that these actions are not directed at some faraway place, but rather at the country which I currently call home and at people who are my friends and family. The most recent events in the Crimea are sadly only one example of when I have found myself in the awkward position of standing in-between my two beloved countries. The Sochi Olympics of this year were another such episode, though to a much less pronounced degree. Yet despite my feelings towards both countries, of late it has become problematic to understand the point-of-view of the United States, much less to support it.
"What is Russia?"
This question defines my early searching in regard to the biggest country on the map. As I grew up in the 1990s, the answer was commonly mixed with old Cold War rhetoric about communism being the antithesis to democracy, that Russia was a bad place, etc. Films of the day spoke of stolen Soviet nuclear weapons and a corrupted country full of bad people looking to do harm to the United States. It was towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s that I began my own Russia story and delved into the richness of this country head first. At the end of 2011, I celebrated New Years in Russia, twenty years after the end of the Soviet Union. Yet the rhetoric changed very little outside of Russia regarding the country. Many films released during this time gave the "bad guy roles" to Russian and Eastern European personages. Video games, such as the popular Modern Warfare series, pitted the United States and the "free world" against Russia and
Russian-speaking evildoers. It would be erroneous to say that such feelings about the United States do not exist in Russia, but they do not manifest themselves in the media as such as in the U.S. Countless jokes and internet memes were made about Russia during this time as well, out of humor of course, but this humor has its source in the ideas supported by the general consensus about Russia. In January of 2014, the international media descended upon Russia for the Sochi Olympics. They found conditions to be less than desirable for their tastes, and responded by posting pictures of their hotel rooms as well as other areas of the Olympic Village on their social media accounts, jokingly and sarcastically belaying their complaints. Reviewing several of these photos, their tone conveys the sense that because of the Olympics location, it should come of no surprise that these problems exist.
These views of Russia are unfortunately not restrained to the media, but manifest themselves also on the global arena. U.S. foreign and military policy following the events of 1991 throughout the former Soviet Union hint at unresolved issues as concern Russia. The continued existence of NATO in addition to its expansion over the past twenty years brings into question the motives behind these actions. NATO was formed following World War II to defend the areas of the North Atlantic. Deducing against whom these areas were to be defended of course did not take that long, as the lines of the Cold War had already been drawn. Later, a similar organization among the Eastern European states headed by the Soviet Union was established, the Warsaw Pact. The purpose of NATO's founding is no secret. Yet how does an organization that was founded for the sole purpose of defending Europe from Soviet aggression still justify its existence today? From the Russian perspective, this is in fact an important question. It is especially relevant in light of recent NATO expansions that include former Warsaw Pact countries. While the motivations behind these countries desires to join the alliance are more than likely manifold, their acceptance into NATO can be interpreted as further steps to alienate Russia as well as to demonstrate Russia's loss of control over these areas. It adds insult to injury in the Russian view.
Inclusion of these states into NATO can be interpreted as a continuation of the policy of "containment", which defined immediate post-World War II U.S. policy towards the Soviet Union's attempts to promote communist governments throughout the world. American bases popped up in Europe and Asia, forming a ring around the Soviet Union. Missiles with ranging destructive yields were based in NATO countries, yet the end of the Cold War did not see the closure of these bases. What is more, there were plans to add missile defense mechanisms onto NATO territory. These plans included placing missiles in Poland for example. While the plans were cancelled, their effect on Russia is not to be downsized, nor are other initiatives that seek to place foreign troops and military hardware (specifically U.S. troops and hardware) on the soil of former Soviet republics. This is akin to the Soviet Union's move of building missile bases in Cuba. That move was greeted with much fear and apprehension in the United States. The U.S. government would not accept having missiles placed so close to U.S. soil, and the government's response matched its resolve, resulting in the removal of Soviet troops and missiles from the Caribbean. Having NATO troops close to its borders gives Russia the same apprehension, remembering that NATO was founded as an anti-Soviet military alliance. The encirclement of Russia continues, and this time it is drawing closer.
The conclusion to be drawn from these developments is that the United States and the "West" continue to view Russia as a threat. And that is where our thinking becomes very skewed.
The Iron Curtain
The distinction that defined the Cold War was that between "East and West." Such a simple border to draw: on one side freedom and democracy, while the other side was ruled with iron fists while people lived in constant misery. And yet Vienna sits further east than Prague and Eastern Germany, and the Baltic States share a linguistic history far different from the slavic republics and "Eastern Bloc" countries, but we had no problem sticking them into a box and slapping a label on them in order to satisfy our need to draw the line between "us" and "them." Yet it is interesting to ponder the names associated with this border, of which the "Iron Curtain" is perhaps the most well known. The phrase was used with such fervor in an effort to demonstrate just how horrible life was beyond "the wall." It is important of course to not make light of the difficulties that existed for those living in the Soviet Union and allied states, nor to pretend that the freedom of speech and assembly were protected and encouraged. These are features of history and must be understood; however, they are not the only aspects of life in the "East." The "Iron Curtain" was drawn just as much by the rest of the world as by the Soviets. By creating this idea of the Soviet Union as a despotic black hole, we let ourselves be blinded by only the bad. We created an "Iron Curtain" that cut ourselves off from seeing what the Soviet Union had to offer, from understanding the people of the "East" in an effort to bring everyone together.
Soviet history is of course awash with moments of extreme repression, the years of Stalin's rule being the most infamous example. Yet the "thaw" that occurred in US-Soviet relations also had its effect within the USSR. Pictures of life in the Soviet Union do not show scenes akin to Orwell's 1984. The memories held by those who remember Soviet days can be described as happy. People were born; they lived, loved, and died in this country, working and fighting for values that anyone around the world can appreciate. Freedoms were repressed, and the effects of this are still felt today, but the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. With the situation in Ukraine and the Crimea, there is all of a sudden talk of the Iron Curtain coming down once again. From within Russia however, very little has changed, especially in Kyzyl. Foreigners are not targeted, rather they are welcomed with open arms. An American film crew recently visited Tuva and spent a week taking pictures and filming the countryside and city without any problems from the authorities, receiving gifts from those they visited. English classes continue, and the American teacher in the city remains unharassed, as do the other foreign students. The unification of Crimea and Russia was greeted with a festival on the main square and then everyone went back to their own lives, because bills must be paid, dinner made, and life continued.
Sanctions and Creating Demons
Life is continuing, three weeks after Crimea joined the Russian Federation. The event itself was hailed as a long-time coming. Crimea is considered "Russian land" by many, and Ukraine furthermore is not considered an alien state, separate from Russia. As has been echoed by journalists, Ukrainians and Russians share so much more than a border. The histories and cultures of these two places are linked. Families extend across borders, as do friendships. While it is so easy to think of state boundaries as finite measures of where one language, culture, and society ends and another begins, the reality is not so simple. Recalling the ideas of the Iron Curtain, we think we can distinguish two people based solely on what passports they hold, while these two people may see each other as brothers or sisters. This analogy does not coincide with the feelings of all Russians and Ukrainians of course, yet those who live in Crimea do feel this way. With allegations of election fraud always surrounding the political process in the Russian Federation, it is easy to assume that the referendum in Crimea was also corrupted in order to produce a result favorable to the Russian government. Many refuse to recognize the referendum results as legitimate, but it still remains that people voted, voiced their opinion and that now Crimea is a part of the Russian Federation. That is a fact that must be accepted, because support for this event can be found throughout the country. It has been called a reversal of Khrushev's "mistake", who ceded Crimea over to the Ukrainian republic, with no referendum for the people of the peninsula to make their opinions heard. Mikhail Gorbachev supports the unification of Crimea and Russia, calling it the "correction of mistakes made" (Short article on his opinion in Russian). Crimea is simply returning to Russia, where it was before. Therefore the referendum and subsequent unification of Crimea with the Russian Federation are seen in quite the opposite light here than in other places because this time the population of the peninsula was given the chance to make their voices heard. Instead of rewarding the democratic process, many countries see fit to punish self-determination. Sanctions though will not resolve this issue and will instead lead to greater consequences in the future.
Already, voices within Russia, specifically within the government, are calling for more extreme measures to match the sanctions initiated by the United States and the European Union. There is talk of creating a uniquely Russian payment system separate from Visa and Mastercard, along with movements to censor those who oppose the government's actions in regard to Ukraine (several instances of which have already occurred), as well as cries for the boycotting and future ousting of MacDonald's and other American food companies from the territory of the Russian Federation. While the degree of seriousness and feasibility of some of this propositions can come into question, credibility is given to such voices when sanctions are leveled against Russia.In anger and desperation, people will turn to whomever offers them a clear-cut response and a means of maitining their dignity. While the sanctions in the meanwhile may be designed not to hurt ordinary Russian citizens, they will. Sanctions encourage extremist voices within the country and government, leading to the adoption of measures that will affect any person at every level of society. This includes everyone leaving within the Russian Federation, those holding Russian passports and those with citizenship from a multitude of countries. There are many Americans living in Russia, who have chosen to start and live their lives in this country. They have made investments here and any act by the U.S. government that hurts Russia will in turn hurt them. Anger will be directed away from the Russian government and towards the instigators of the sanctions: the United States of America. When Washington D.C. is thousands of miles away, the immediate representatives of the U.S. of A become those holding blue passports. Like in every country, Russia has its own share of people who call themselves "patriots" and do not wish to see other nationalities and citizens of other states living their lives at peace within the country. These groups are looking for a reason to fight against the "outsiders". U.S. actions can very well become just that excuse. The "Iron Curtain" and "hatred" of America and the "West" that many believe already exists in Russia will come to fruition by our own hands. The U.S. will create its own demons, a circumstance that has haunted us in the past.
"What is Russia?"
This question defines my early searching in regard to the biggest country on the map. As I grew up in the 1990s, the answer was commonly mixed with old Cold War rhetoric about communism being the antithesis to democracy, that Russia was a bad place, etc. Films of the day spoke of stolen Soviet nuclear weapons and a corrupted country full of bad people looking to do harm to the United States. It was towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s that I began my own Russia story and delved into the richness of this country head first. At the end of 2011, I celebrated New Years in Russia, twenty years after the end of the Soviet Union. Yet the rhetoric changed very little outside of Russia regarding the country. Many films released during this time gave the "bad guy roles" to Russian and Eastern European personages. Video games, such as the popular Modern Warfare series, pitted the United States and the "free world" against Russia and
Russian-speaking evildoers. It would be erroneous to say that such feelings about the United States do not exist in Russia, but they do not manifest themselves in the media as such as in the U.S. Countless jokes and internet memes were made about Russia during this time as well, out of humor of course, but this humor has its source in the ideas supported by the general consensus about Russia. In January of 2014, the international media descended upon Russia for the Sochi Olympics. They found conditions to be less than desirable for their tastes, and responded by posting pictures of their hotel rooms as well as other areas of the Olympic Village on their social media accounts, jokingly and sarcastically belaying their complaints. Reviewing several of these photos, their tone conveys the sense that because of the Olympics location, it should come of no surprise that these problems exist.These views of Russia are unfortunately not restrained to the media, but manifest themselves also on the global arena. U.S. foreign and military policy following the events of 1991 throughout the former Soviet Union hint at unresolved issues as concern Russia. The continued existence of NATO in addition to its expansion over the past twenty years brings into question the motives behind these actions. NATO was formed following World War II to defend the areas of the North Atlantic. Deducing against whom these areas were to be defended of course did not take that long, as the lines of the Cold War had already been drawn. Later, a similar organization among the Eastern European states headed by the Soviet Union was established, the Warsaw Pact. The purpose of NATO's founding is no secret. Yet how does an organization that was founded for the sole purpose of defending Europe from Soviet aggression still justify its existence today? From the Russian perspective, this is in fact an important question. It is especially relevant in light of recent NATO expansions that include former Warsaw Pact countries. While the motivations behind these countries desires to join the alliance are more than likely manifold, their acceptance into NATO can be interpreted as further steps to alienate Russia as well as to demonstrate Russia's loss of control over these areas. It adds insult to injury in the Russian view.
Inclusion of these states into NATO can be interpreted as a continuation of the policy of "containment", which defined immediate post-World War II U.S. policy towards the Soviet Union's attempts to promote communist governments throughout the world. American bases popped up in Europe and Asia, forming a ring around the Soviet Union. Missiles with ranging destructive yields were based in NATO countries, yet the end of the Cold War did not see the closure of these bases. What is more, there were plans to add missile defense mechanisms onto NATO territory. These plans included placing missiles in Poland for example. While the plans were cancelled, their effect on Russia is not to be downsized, nor are other initiatives that seek to place foreign troops and military hardware (specifically U.S. troops and hardware) on the soil of former Soviet republics. This is akin to the Soviet Union's move of building missile bases in Cuba. That move was greeted with much fear and apprehension in the United States. The U.S. government would not accept having missiles placed so close to U.S. soil, and the government's response matched its resolve, resulting in the removal of Soviet troops and missiles from the Caribbean. Having NATO troops close to its borders gives Russia the same apprehension, remembering that NATO was founded as an anti-Soviet military alliance. The encirclement of Russia continues, and this time it is drawing closer.
The conclusion to be drawn from these developments is that the United States and the "West" continue to view Russia as a threat. And that is where our thinking becomes very skewed.
The Iron Curtain
The distinction that defined the Cold War was that between "East and West." Such a simple border to draw: on one side freedom and democracy, while the other side was ruled with iron fists while people lived in constant misery. And yet Vienna sits further east than Prague and Eastern Germany, and the Baltic States share a linguistic history far different from the slavic republics and "Eastern Bloc" countries, but we had no problem sticking them into a box and slapping a label on them in order to satisfy our need to draw the line between "us" and "them." Yet it is interesting to ponder the names associated with this border, of which the "Iron Curtain" is perhaps the most well known. The phrase was used with such fervor in an effort to demonstrate just how horrible life was beyond "the wall." It is important of course to not make light of the difficulties that existed for those living in the Soviet Union and allied states, nor to pretend that the freedom of speech and assembly were protected and encouraged. These are features of history and must be understood; however, they are not the only aspects of life in the "East." The "Iron Curtain" was drawn just as much by the rest of the world as by the Soviets. By creating this idea of the Soviet Union as a despotic black hole, we let ourselves be blinded by only the bad. We created an "Iron Curtain" that cut ourselves off from seeing what the Soviet Union had to offer, from understanding the people of the "East" in an effort to bring everyone together.
Soviet history is of course awash with moments of extreme repression, the years of Stalin's rule being the most infamous example. Yet the "thaw" that occurred in US-Soviet relations also had its effect within the USSR. Pictures of life in the Soviet Union do not show scenes akin to Orwell's 1984. The memories held by those who remember Soviet days can be described as happy. People were born; they lived, loved, and died in this country, working and fighting for values that anyone around the world can appreciate. Freedoms were repressed, and the effects of this are still felt today, but the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. With the situation in Ukraine and the Crimea, there is all of a sudden talk of the Iron Curtain coming down once again. From within Russia however, very little has changed, especially in Kyzyl. Foreigners are not targeted, rather they are welcomed with open arms. An American film crew recently visited Tuva and spent a week taking pictures and filming the countryside and city without any problems from the authorities, receiving gifts from those they visited. English classes continue, and the American teacher in the city remains unharassed, as do the other foreign students. The unification of Crimea and Russia was greeted with a festival on the main square and then everyone went back to their own lives, because bills must be paid, dinner made, and life continued.
Sanctions and Creating Demons
 |
| Kyzyl's rally in support of unification. |
Already, voices within Russia, specifically within the government, are calling for more extreme measures to match the sanctions initiated by the United States and the European Union. There is talk of creating a uniquely Russian payment system separate from Visa and Mastercard, along with movements to censor those who oppose the government's actions in regard to Ukraine (several instances of which have already occurred), as well as cries for the boycotting and future ousting of MacDonald's and other American food companies from the territory of the Russian Federation. While the degree of seriousness and feasibility of some of this propositions can come into question, credibility is given to such voices when sanctions are leveled against Russia.In anger and desperation, people will turn to whomever offers them a clear-cut response and a means of maitining their dignity. While the sanctions in the meanwhile may be designed not to hurt ordinary Russian citizens, they will. Sanctions encourage extremist voices within the country and government, leading to the adoption of measures that will affect any person at every level of society. This includes everyone leaving within the Russian Federation, those holding Russian passports and those with citizenship from a multitude of countries. There are many Americans living in Russia, who have chosen to start and live their lives in this country. They have made investments here and any act by the U.S. government that hurts Russia will in turn hurt them. Anger will be directed away from the Russian government and towards the instigators of the sanctions: the United States of America. When Washington D.C. is thousands of miles away, the immediate representatives of the U.S. of A become those holding blue passports. Like in every country, Russia has its own share of people who call themselves "patriots" and do not wish to see other nationalities and citizens of other states living their lives at peace within the country. These groups are looking for a reason to fight against the "outsiders". U.S. actions can very well become just that excuse. The "Iron Curtain" and "hatred" of America and the "West" that many believe already exists in Russia will come to fruition by our own hands. The U.S. will create its own demons, a circumstance that has haunted us in the past.
While we may see ourselves as acting on the side of democracy and what is right, we may be in fact headed in a completely different direction.
The U.S. Today
 |
| Keystone Protests. Photo credit: Reuters. |
As the only American many of my students know, I am their one source of learning about the United States outside of films and other sources of popular media. Reiterating the discussion above, popular media does not always portray Russia in the positive, thus giving my students the impression that the U.S. dislikes Russia. I feel responsible for such opinions and must combat these assumptions. Yet current U.S. policy does not help me in this cause. Furthermore, when my students talk to me about the United States, they do so with idealism and dreaming, imagining a place where a person's dreams can come true and freedom is abound. That is the America I grew up learning about and to this day I am told that I am a citizen of a great nation where all these ideals are alive. Reality has shown me that such statements are not as black and white as they are made out to be. I was taught that the United States was a country for example where everyone enjoys the right to assembly and speech; however, as I sat and watched news about the Occupy Wall Street movement from my St. Petersburg apartment, I wept at what I saw.
 |
| Occupy. Photo Credit: Daily Mail |
Protesters who had gathered to voice their concerns and opinions against the direction in which American society is headed were dispersed violently by police officers across the country. Many of these groups organized camps, literally occupying the areas they found for protest. Similar actions were taken by those occupying Maidan Square in Kiev. Yet, the reaction of the U.S. government and local law enforcement agencies towards the Occupy Protests by American citizens sharply differs from the support given to the Maidan protesters as well as to the government erected by those involved. Moreoever, federal laws passed after the breakup of the Occupy movement limit any American's right to protest any number of issues with which they find disagreeance (you may read more here and here). One can now search on Google with the terms 'How to Protest Legally" and find advice and rules. I grew up learning that the only rule I needed for protesting was the 1st Amendment. And yet when students gathered at the White House to peacefully protest the Keystone XL pipeline earlier this year, I once again wept for my country as those students were carried away in handcuffs.
 | |
|
When I look at such events in the U.S. and compare them with similar circumstances in Russia, it is difficult to determine where this "Iron Curtain" has actually come down. Protesting legally is very difficult in the Russian Federation and people face arrest each time they leave their homes to stand up for their ideals. This does not however stop those same people from protesting on a regular basis. Citizens from all walks of life grab flags and banners and make their voices heard, in all types of weather. I was continually inspired by my host-father in St. Petersburg, who despite being well into his 70s went out to march in protest after protest throughout my stay in the city. Do Americans feel this same courage in the face of our own laws? Images flash on American TV stations and in newspapers of uniformed police officers tackling protesters on Red Square and throughout the country, and we condemn such brutality as our government responds with criticism towards the Kremlin, while police brutality and the unconstitutional arrests of protesters within our own borders draws not a word from the White House. This double standard is alive and well today in regard to Crimea. The United States accuses Putin of illegally invading a foreign country and thus calling for sanctions to be placed upon Russia. When the United States sent troops into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, while disagreeing with these actions, the Russian Federation did not issue sanctions against the U.S. When President Obama was on the verge of sending American forces into Syria, it was not Switzerland or Sweden who talked him down, but President Putin. Nor does the Russian Federation seek to convince the United State's neighbors to join into any sort of military alliance.
The double standard by which the United State's acts throughout the world is damaging to the future. How can we pretend to defend ideals in other countries that we ourselves do not stand for at home? This signals a moral crisis within our own country. But, that is a topic for another discussion. Right now, we can do the unexpected. Perhaps President Putin wants the U.S. to act the way it is and maybe Putin does want to conquer the world. Then it could be possible, that this time around, instead of meeting Russia head-on in an arms race, we meet them in a full embrace. Because the truth is, that at the end of the day there is no such thing as "East" and "West". By going east from Kyzyl, I can reach the territory of the United States just as I can by going west. The divides are human made, which means they can be undone.
The double standard by which the United State's acts throughout the world is damaging to the future. How can we pretend to defend ideals in other countries that we ourselves do not stand for at home? This signals a moral crisis within our own country. But, that is a topic for another discussion. Right now, we can do the unexpected. Perhaps President Putin wants the U.S. to act the way it is and maybe Putin does want to conquer the world. Then it could be possible, that this time around, instead of meeting Russia head-on in an arms race, we meet them in a full embrace. Because the truth is, that at the end of the day there is no such thing as "East" and "West". By going east from Kyzyl, I can reach the territory of the United States just as I can by going west. The divides are human made, which means they can be undone.
