
Why We Fight Russia - vonnik
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/221507/why-we-fight-russia
======
cafard
The United States was on perfectly good terms with Russia from the early
republic through 1917. During the American Civil War, and for that matter
during the period about 1800-1814, we were on better terms with Russia than
with England or France. During the later part of the 19th Century various
persons of liberal convictions did complain about the Russian government; they
made a persuasive case in the press, but how far this affected the opinions of
the governing classes is not clear.

To have an opposite to point to does seem to do the national self-esteem good.
The national mind might be another matter.

------
dimitar
I don't like this line of thought - being anti-Russian because it is a
"tradition".

There a lot more specific things to oppose Putin specifically and his 21st
century Kremlin for:

* the wars in the North Caucasus, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.

* the enormous plunder of Russia's natural resources and the corruption/bribery of democratic governments.

* the sponsoring of hateful ideologies and their export across the world.

* the unscrupulous sale of weapons to warlords and dictators across the developing world

* the war on truth - the killing and intimidation of journalists, the fake news on Russian channels, the spread of FUD on western media, even the wave of Internet trolls.

~~~
gaius
_the wars in the North Caucasus, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria_

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya...

 _the enormous plunder of Russia 's natural resources_

The Dakota Access Pipeline

 _the sponsoring of hateful ideologies and their export across the world_

The cosy relationship with the exporters of Wahhabism

 _the unscrupulous sale of weapons to warlords and dictators across the
developing world_

Handing out weapons like candy to every faction in the Middle East

 _the war on truth_

CNN

~~~
dimitar
Actually there is a false equivalency even if I take your list on face value -
the things you mentioned are done by multiple actors: two US administrations,
Congress, Tribal and sectoral militias, Middle-Eastern governments, even
private entities (CNN). On the Russian side your have Putin and his vertical
of power (the popular term for his centralized, personal rule of Russia).

I also don't understand the point - is any of these things I listed OK because
the "US" does them (or vice versa)? Looks like the 'Tu quoque' or 'appeal to
hypocrisy' logical fallacy.

~~~
gaius
_Actually there is a false equivalency_

It is not false at all. The reality is that nations pursue their national
interests, and the exact mechanism by which they organise themselves to do so
is a mere implication detail.

~~~
contrast
How you organise yourself is a huge part of if and how you value people other
than yourself. Some of us think democracy, free speech, civil liberties are
important, because other people matter, and we are better off even with flawed
implementations of those ideals.

So sure, cast them aside as mere "implication details" if you like. The
Internet will always be full of nihilistic kids who don't think anything is
worth standing up for, and it's valuable to have examples to point to.

~~~
gaius
_democracy, free speech, civil liberties are important_

That's funny because when _any country_ engages in _any policy_ it believes
itself to be "the good guys".

Russia didn't export revolution "because we are evil lol" but it saw itself as
liberating the oppressed every bit as America does when it launches the
bombers. Again. One bombing mission on average every 20 minutes for the last 8
years. Show me some actual evidence that American values are any different
than Russia's.

------
hackeraccount
I'm reminded of Abraham's Lincoln's quote:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we
began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read
it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get
control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and
foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating
to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia,
for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
hypocracy

The way it talks about Russia seems anachronistic but I guess our view of the
country hasn't really changed much over the last 150 years.

~~~
dragonwriter
At the time Lincoln was writing, Russia was an absolute monarchy politically
and largely feudal economically when the West (even those countries that were
formally monarchies) had substantial penetration of both democratic
institutions and capitalist economics (to the point that detailed criticism of
capitalism and proposals for post-capitalist economic systems were around;
this letter, after all, was written several years after the _Communist
Manifesto_.)

So, yeah, it's not surprising that Russia would be chosen as an example of a
backward and anti-liberty regime even then.

------
niftich
This is some strange aspirational, manifest destiny read on American
individualism vs. Russian greatness through military might, anchored and
extruded around the Tocqueville quote.

I much favor the alternate view, where the justifications and rationalizations
are intellectual fluff and the day-to-day drivers are geopolitics. The about-
face is still a jarring contrast, but only because Russia also considers the
US an adversary.

While the two occasionally cooperate, generally it's not in one's vested
interest to see the other one thrive beyond a boring, uneventful stability to
where they're somewhat useful as a trade partner, stable enough to ward off
unrest, and not assertive enough to project its power overseas.

~~~
dimitar
"Its just geopolitics" doesn't have enough explanatory power. Why doesn't the
USA have the same kind of relationship with Russia as it does with Canada,
Australia, Brazil, Japan or any other country with a either a similar
population size, land area, natural resources endowment or level economic of
development? Brazil is particularly comparable to Russia in terms in terms of
the above and yet its foreign relations are totally different.

I see nothing inherent about Russia's geography to cause a conflict with NATO.
If anything geography should push Russia _to_ the West and particularly the EU
as the country is going lower and lower in the rankings of power by the rising
populations and incomes across the former 3rd world.

------
grzm
Suggested title: "Anti-Russia: Liberty and servitude in the new philo-czarist
age"

This concatenates the title ("Anti-Russia") and the subtitle, as the title
alone seems non-specific.

------
gragas
OP, who is "we" referring to in your title? A very large portion of the US
certainly disagrees with almost every point in this article.

~~~
grzm
The article title does not include the "we".

~~~
syockit
It's probably automatically taken from the HTML title of the page. No idea why
the title's that way; they've probably changed the title at one point.

~~~
grzm
I see what you mean. The URL also reflects this: ...221507/why-we-fight-russia
The bookmarklet would use this title as well.

