Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Christianity: Servant of the State or of Christ?

In a recent speech to the Russian people, Vladimir Putin “praised Russia’s army with words from St. John’s gospel: ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’” This is the army that has killed men, women, and children by indiscriminate attacks on Ukraine’s towns and cities.

Putin attempts what many leaders do: rally a country around religion.

According to a briefing in The Economist (March 26, 2022, “The Cult of War), Putin has revived an “obscurantist anti-Western mixture of Orthodox dogma, nationalism, conspiracy theory and security-state Stalinism.”

To cloak Putin’s desire to revive the greater Russia of the czars in the words of Jesus Christ is surely a horrible repudiation of Christ’s life and message.

The temptation to tie Christ to political causes, however, has been dangled before his followers ever since his life on earth. Indeed, Christ himself was tempted, according to Christian gospels, to worship Satan by accepting Satan’s gift of all the kingdoms of the world. He refused, as his followers been called to do ever since.

Crowds of would-be followers lined up to cheer Jesus toward the end of his ministry. They hoped he would overcome Rome’s rule of their country. Instead, Jesus rode into Jerusalem, not on a charging war steed, but on an humble donkey. A few days later, he allowed himself to be killed by the Roman state.

Throughout the two-thousand years since that death, those calling themselves by his name have struggled with the militant temptation. When they have succumbed, as in the religious wars of the 1600’s, Christianity suffered, eclipsed by more worldly options like Stalin’s communism.

When Christians accepted the more lowly call of service—raising the status of women, freeing slaves, building hospitals, and feeding the poor, Christianity has been strengthened.

In every generation, Christians are confronted with this choice—God as state or God as Jesus.

China: Now the Senior Partner

China’s stance on Ukraine’s struggle for independence from Russia is of utmost importance. China has reversed its relationship with Russia from Cold War days: from junior partner to senior.

Linda Jaivin, in The Shortest History of China, recounts the multi- millennial history of the country from the beginning of human settlement to the current reign under Xi Jinping.

From shadowed beginnings, China rose and fell under various dynasties until the last one ended in the early twentieth century. Fighting between factions ensued, including the Chinese Communist party, founded in 1921. The other major faction, the Nationalists, opposed to the Communists, was led by Chiang Kai-shek.

The Japanese invasion of China before World War II, despite its horrors, did little to overcome the struggles between the Communist and Nationalist parties. After World War II, the Communist party became ascendant.

Through years of turmoil, including horrible self-inflicted famines, the Communists eventually overcame the disastrous years of Mao Tse-tung. They began to grow the economy into the giant it is today. Meanwhile, Russia stumbled from promises of a democratic government to the current kleptocracy under Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy.

How much freedom will countries enjoy who exist on the margins of Russia and China? Is it possible for Ukrainians to enjoy the independence they desire? To become a partner with the successful countries of Europe? Can Taiwan maintain its independence?

Overcoming an Attempted Coup

The picture of Russian politician Boris Yeltsin on the steps of the Russian parliament in August 1991 forever symbolizes his finest moment. He and a few supporters overcame a coup attempt to take over Russia’s first attempts at democracy.

Later, after the Soviet Union ceased to exist and Mikhail Gorbachev stepped down, Yeltsin became president of an independent Russia. He was never again as popular or as successful as in those heady days when he led the successful resistance to the attempted coup.

Eventually, Vladimir Putin took over Russian leadership and followed the path toward dictatorship.

A democracy is difficult to bring about and sometimes difficult to keep, once birthed, even in the United States.

During a hot summer in 1776 in Philadelphia, representatives from British colonies in North America declared their independence from Great Britain. They crafted their new republic with a Declaration of Independence.

As it was being declared, an onlooker in the crowd reportedly asked Benjamin Franklin, “What kind of government do we have now?”

Franklin is reported to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We may look back on January 6, 2021, as the day Vice President Mike Pence stood down an American version of a coup against that republic.

U.S. and Russia: déjà vu?

In 1946, George F. Kennan, a U.S. diplomat stationed at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, examined U.S./Russian relations in what is famously known as “the long telegram.”

The telegram, sent from the embassy to the U.S. State Department in Washington, outlined directions that greatly influenced our relations with the Soviet Union for the rest of the Cold War.

Kennan summarized Soviet ideology as based on its belief that capitalism is evil and will eventually be overcome by the triumph of the working class. However, the early Russian communists had to first overthrow the Tsarist regime. Since the majority of people in the first communist country, Russia, were not inclined to this “necessary overthrow,” a dictatorship had to be established to bring it about.

Indeed, any opposition to this firm belief in communism had to be fought, including any opposition in the rest of the world, including the United States. Soviet ideology must stress the menace of capitalism.

“It must invariably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Soviet regime . . .” Kennan wrote.

Basically, the Soviets saw communist ideology as absolute truth. If democratic ideas inhibit the growth of this ideology, then democratic ideas must be destroyed.

However, whether the Soviet system would triumph would depend on the success of the different model chosen by the United States. “The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”

The overthrow of Soviet rule by Soviet satellite states in the 1990’s obviously was a blow to the communist ideology outlined by Kennan. However, the cheering crowds in Germany and other places should not obscure the fact that dedicated communists like Vladimir Putin remained as dedicated to the communist ideology as ever. They bided their time and are now working their way back into power in Russia and other former Soviet states.

This is the background against which Putin operates today. A Soviet operator in the former East Germany, Putin saw the Communist regime in east Germany topple. His world suffered ignominious defeat.

With this background, we can see the challenge posed by a Ukraine desirous of democracy, including connections with democratic nations of Europe.

Yet the stakes are bigger even than Ukraine or a few former Communist bloc countries. The communism of Vladimir Putin is patient. It believes capitalism will eventually implode, overcome by capitalist selfishness.

Perhaps we should understand the importance of the choices we are making regarding the kind of capitalism we choose. That which plays into Putin’s hands, in which the rich get richer and the rest pay more of the country’s taxes? Or a more responsible kind which, among other choices, takes care of its children and vulnerable citizens and is upheld by a fair system of taxation?

Big Brother Has You in His Sights

Reading the Mueller Report side-by-side with a U.S. diplomat’s recent memoir, The Back Channel, makes frightening reading.

William Burns, author of The Back Channel, spent most of his adult life, from 1982 until his retirement in 2014, serving the United States as a diplomat. He held several top jobs, including ambassador to Russia from 2005 until 2008.

In his book, Burns goes out of his way to compliment almost all the people he has worked with in a long diplomatic life, both American and foreign. One exception is Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Putin, according to Burns, harbors something close to paranoia about the United States. Among other views, Putin doesn’t see the movement in Ukraine to topple a Russia-friendly autocrat as a people’s movement, but an effort by the United States to keep Russia down.

Burns writes: “Putin gradually shifted from testing the West in places where Russia had a greater stake . . . like Ukraine . . . to places where the West had a far greater stake, like the integrity of its democracies.”

Then read even the outlines of the Mueller Report, beginning with the section titled “Russian ‘Active Measures’ Social Media Campaign.” (The term “IRA” is the Internet Research Agency, a Russian agency used to spread disinformation on the internet.)

“The IRA Targets U.S. Elections. The IRA Ramps Up U.S. Operations As Early As 2014. U.S. Operations Through IRA-Controlled Social Media Accounts. U.S. Operations Through Facebook. U.S. Operations Through Twitter.” And so on.

The unquestionable conclusion of the Mueller Report is that the Russian government actively interfered in U.S. elections in an attempt to manipulate voters its way.

And next time?

“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

The Flap Over Vladimir

Vladimir PutinThe Russian currency has tumbled in the world money markets. A combination of circumstances contributed. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in the Ukraine led to sanctions by Europe and the U.S. In addition, it’s not a happy time for oil producers like Russia, as oil prices have reached historic lows.

Due to what is called “crony capitalism,” Russia missed opportunities to evolve into a responsible actor on the world stage when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990’s. Too much money has gone to Kremlin business favorites, and corruption has harmed ordinary Russians. At the same time, the West overplayed its triumph.

The desire for respect and security gave Putin the chance to play on the historic Russian fear of domination by outside powers. Unlike the United States, Russia historically has suffered from invasion, including Mongols in the thirteenth century, Napoleon in the nineteenth, and Germany in the twentieth.

Alexander J. Motyl, in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, says we should take a page from U.S. Cold War diplomat George Kennan. Contain Putin by sanctions and economic means so that he does not overpower the countries around him.

At the same time, recognize that Russia has legitimate fears due to its past history. Wait until the opportunity to establish friendlier relations. Never humiliate. Hubris does not make for partnership.

Political Power And Forgiveness

 

You can’t help but feel sorry for the three Russian young women, displayed in the glass box for all the world to gloat at their humiliation. They stare out as though struggling to project a cool image amid their nervousness, the way young people do when called to account by their elders.

Their predicament is more serious than humiliation. A Russian court sentenced the women to two years in jail for singing a ribald song in a cathedral against Russian President Vladimir Putin. It went something like “Virgin Mary, Save Us From Putin.” It was disrespectful but mild considering that the recent election of Putin suggested grave improprieties and even fraud.

After protests developed over the election, Putin signed a new law that raised fines for participation in unauthorized protests to near the average annual salary in Russia. [link] Protesters and opposition bloggers have not only been fined but imprisoned.

The religious leaders of the Russian Orthodox church appeared outraged at the women’s actions and called their performance in the church part of an assault “by enemy forces.”  Finally, after accusing the young women and their supporters of sacrilegious acts, they called on the court to show mercy.

The young women said they did not mean to offend believers but were protesting the close ties between Putin and the Russian Orthodox church. Patriarch Kirill, head of the church, strongly supports Putin. [link]

Harsh punishment of the women is not likely to endear the church to the protesters, especially the younger ones. Wouldn’t community service have been a more appropriate punishment?