This is either a shockingly ignorant headline or odiously deceptive if done intentionally.
Paul Frantizek
4

Nah. No agenda. As Brian mentioned, Russia/U.S.S.R./Soviets/Moscow/Kremlin were all used more or less interchangeably during the Cold War when talking about foreign policy, just like U.S./Washington/America/Pentagon were. It was so common that those two examples are often included in lists of common/standard/cliché metonyms, along with England/Britain/U.K. There are times when the distinctions matter, of course, but other times not so much. Even in official docs it was common for the U.S.S.R./Soviets to be referred to as Russia or Moscow or the Kremlin. I used the terms more or less interchangeably throughout the article. Besides, it was always Moscow/Russia calling the shots for the Soviet Union. So, when it comes down to it, it was Russia. It may have different implications given current political trends, but it’s always been common to have “Russia” stand in the place of “U.S.S.R.” when talking about Cold War stuff — even during the Cold War. This is how I’ve always written about the Soviet Union/Russia. No one has ever had an issue with it before. If it makes you feel any better, when I shared the article on most of my social media accounts I said “I’m not jumping on the ‘let’s go to war with Russia bandwagon…’” But, again, in the end, Russia was the head of the Soviet Union. When you’re talking about the U.S.S.R.’s policy, you are — for all intents and purposes — talking about Russian policy.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Darien Cavanaugh’s story.