Russia vs. the West.
Steve Wozniak — the co-founder of Apple computers took initiative and planned a set of international telecasts between Soviet Union and United States.
The relations between the West and Russia were always tense. In 1980’s the tensions reached a whole new level and something had to be done to decrease the heat between the sides. Steve Wozniak — the co-founder of Apple computers took initiative and planned a set of international telecasts between Soviet Union and United States. On those telecasts ordinary Russians could exchange questions with ordinary Americans about any topic they wanted — from sex to politics.The aim of the telecasts was to get people on both sides of the ocean to meet each other and most importantly understand each other.
Three decades have passed since then, but we still need these telecasts, perhaps, even more than in 1982. There is hope. In April 2015, an annual event called Munk Debate was held in Toronto, Canada. It’s aim was to discuss the current relations between Russia and the West.
If there is one talk you have to watch about Russia — watch the one at Munk Debate. Out of all articles written about Russian politics, out of all books written about the U.S. — Russian relations, this talk will reveal to you much more in a shorter period of time. If you are Russian — it will help you understand the Western side. If you are American — you will reveal to yourself how Russia thinks about American geopolitics.
However Russians still don’t understand Americans and Americans still don’t understand Russians. That’s the problem of today. And Munk debate revealed it once more. On that April day in Toronto, the experts were trying to answer a simple question “Whether the West should engage with Russia or not?”
If you have never watched any of Munk Debates, let me tell you briefly about the event. Each year Munk chooses one or two topics, on wide range of international issues, to be discussed. When the topic is chosen, the event invites four experts to debate the issue. Usually topics sound like statements, for example “state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms”. Each statement is supported and opposed by two out four invited experts. You can watch the debate online or buy a ticket to attend it at Roy Thomson hall in Toronto, Canada. The viewers are able to vote for the side they support — twice. Before the debate starts and after when the debate ends. The discussion starts with a six-minute opening statements from each of the participants.
Argument No.1 — Stephen Cohen. (Pro-engagement)
“To achieve the security in the world, we need a partner in the Kremlin.” said in his opening speech Stephen Cohen — professor of Russian Studies at Princeton University — “Not a friend, but a partner who shares our fundamental security interest, and to achieve that, we must not merely engage Russia. We must pursue full co-operation on security and other matters with Russia. That is our reality today — the fact that national security, ours and yours, still runs through Moscow. This is an existential truth.”
“Equating Putin with Adolf Hitler is another example of how our new cold warriors are recklessly damaging U.S. national security in vital areas where Putin’s cooperation is essential.” — Stephen Cohen.
It’s difficult to disagree with what professor Cohen says. Russia holds the largest arsenal of nukes and 40 percent of the world’s natural resources. The complete disengagement would be a disaster. However, should the west fully cooperate with Russia?
Argument No.2. — Anne Applebaum. (Con-engagement)
“To be clear, the Russia that we have today, the current Russian regime as it exists now, is the result of our failed policy of engagement.” said Anne Applebaum,author of several books on Russian politics and the supporter of ‘disengagement’ with Russia argument.
Applebaum continued — “ While we were engaging Russia, while we were inviting Russia into our institutions, while we were attempting to create a Russia, what was Russia doing? Putin invaded Chechnya, not once but twice. He invaded Georgia. He invaded Ukraine. He built up his military system.”
In my opinion, Anne Applebaum is correct — the dirty Russian money should leave the banks of the West. It shouldn’t had been there to say quite frankly at first place. And after removing that dirty money from U.S. and EU maybe the West can stop engaging with Russian elites and start engaging with ordinary Russian people.
“Russia is not a flawed Western power. Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics” — Anne Applebaum.
Argument No.3 — Vladimir Pozner. (Pro-engagment)
It was the turn of the next guest to give his opening speech. His name was Vladimir Pozner and he is a famous Russian broadcaster.
“When the Russian Empire crumbled in 1917 and the Bolsheviks came to power” — Pozner said in his opening speech — “the West refused to recognize first Soviet Russia and then, the Soviet Union. Isolation and non engagement were the words of the day and so, for a decade or so, the country was cast by Western media as an evil power and left to stew in its own juices.”
Ordinary Russian people were left alone face-to-face with the new government — government which quickly established their repressive propaganda and security apparatus. And ordinary Russian people were left to stew in the juices of a violent Communist revolution.
“Non-recognition, non-engagement and isolation, non-interference”- Posner said “ on the West’s part, the absence of any united outcry, all of these played no small role in allowing the Soviet system to evolve the way it did.
“For the average Russian, who is a very proud person with a sense of history and a belief that his is a great country, Putin has given him back his sense of pride — you cannot ignore us any more, the way you did when Yeltsin was in power and Russia was on its knees.” — Vladimir Pozner.
Argument No.4. — Garry Kasparov. (Con-engagement)
Pozner’s argument was misunderstood by his opponent — a world known Russian chess player turned opposition politician, Garry Kasparov.
“I am always willing to learn” — said Garry Kasparov mockingly — “But this is the first time that I have ever heard that a policy of engagement in the 1920s could have prevented Stalinist terror.”
“In chess we had fixed rules and unpredictable results. In Putin’s Russia it is exactly the opposite” — said former world champion in chess sarcastically — “I hope that eventually we’ll recognize that it’s not about isolating Russia. It’s about isolating Putin’s regime, which is a dangerous virus. You don’t engage a virus. It needs to be contained. Contamination is not the answer.”
“A dictator grows into a monster when he is not confronted at an early stage… And unlike Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin has nuclear weapons.” — Garry Kasparov.
Who’s going to be next Steve Wozniak? Who’s going to be next Vladimir Pozner?
Ironically, Vladimir Pozner was the person who co-hosted the Soviet-U.S. telecasts in 1982. Three decades have passed, but the relations remained the same. In 1990’s, when USSR collapsed, people (at least some) had hopes for better future, more freedom and prosperity.
These hopes started to crumble slowly in 2000’s and entered a new more devastating phase in 2013 with the beginning of Ukraine revolution and then the civil war.That’s when the Russian propaganda machine started to focus on every person with independent mind and every media with independent editorial stance.Sadly, today, people and media which have stance that differs from that of Kremlin are left face-to-face with organized elite that does everything to shut them down.
The overwhelming majority of TV channels, Radio, Newspapers and even blogs are dominated by the government. Russian citizen hears government’s narrative on the radio while he or she is driving to home or work; or at home when TV says the same arguments to them on evening news. But propaganda is not the only problem.
I don’t want to show that I side with either of the sides, but I want to finish this article with what Vladimir Pozner noted — “the average Russian today is much more anti-American. [Since the end of Cold War] the Russians were told, just shut up. And since the UN would not condone it, NATO did it. And then of course, Kosovo was allowed to leave Serbia, although it had been part of Serbia for over 500 years. 15 Why was that possible? Why were the Russians ignored? That is the kind of humiliation that has led to the greatest anti-American sentiment in Russia that I have ever known, much more than during Soviet times. The average Russian today is absolutely anti-American and that was not the case before.”
In 1980’s, people in Soviet Union and United States were exhausted by decades of constant fear of Nuclear or Third World War. They needed these telecasts to meet the people ‘from the other side’ and when they did, they understood that their fears are the same. That made them closer to each other.
But today it’s different. The fears of ordinary Russians are very different from the fears of ordinary Americans. In 1980’s they both feared Nuclear disaster coming from an accidental or intentional push of the ‘read nuclear button’ — today Americans are feared of terrorism and Russians are scared of NATO coming to their borders closer and closer. As Vladimir Pozner noted “There was anti-Bush, anti-Reagan sentiment [in Russia before], yes, but not anti-Americanism.” Today, modern Russian is Anti-American.
At least there are platforms for discussion such as — Munk Debates.
Enjoy the full debate:
___________________________________________________________________
READ NEXT →
___________________________________________________________________
