China

It’s Russia’s Putin, not Putin’s Russia, or, In Defense, once again, of Area Studies

/ jonathanzludwig

The original absurd Time magazine headline, “How Ukraine’s [Kakhovka] dam collapse could become the country’s ‘Chernobyl,’” while quickly mocked with responses such as “When will America face its own Pearl Harbor,” or “Will Napoleon ever meet his Waterloo?,” reinforces a serious issue in discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 16 months after Russia’s full-scale war, 9 years after Russia’s seizing of Crimea, and centuries after an imperial expansion that first brought Ukraine under its thrall – there is still a lack of knowing and understanding basic facts when it comes to Russia, Ukraine, and their histories, separate and intertwined, and there is a continued failure to understand the current situation in the full context of Russian imperial history. Likewise, there is a continued failure in certain circles to explain Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond the Soviet system in which he was raised or his actions beyond IR realist theory.

Amongst a certain ilk of political scientists in particular, Putin’s actions in Ukraine are not only explained but, it seems, justified by NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, in contradiction to an alleged promise that it would not happen. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s final General Secretary, confirming on Russian TV that there was no such promise ever made should put this argument to rest forever, but, alas, it has not. In similar fashion, their realist IR theory justifies Russia keeping the lands they have illegally seized, for they are – in their words – “traditional Russian lands,” while trying to compel Ukraine to negotiate these lands away in the name of a “peace” that Russia cannot be trusted to keep. Equally absurd is their notion that Russia should have received any type of “security guarantees” from the defensive NATO alliance, when it is Russia – and Russia alone – that has been the belligerent in the region, attacking only nations that have not been admitted into NATO.

Likewise, Putin’s psychology is explained away by, well, take your choice: he is a former KGB official; he was serving in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and no one in Moscow would answer the phone and tell him what to do; something about once cornering a rat; the disintegration of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century,” any or all of which have led him to want to create a strong state at home, impervious to collapse. Those who can work a little further back link him to the Stalinist state, while a few more manage to tie him to Lenin’s Red Terror and other brutalities. While the tacit acknowledgement that Stalin – the only Soviet-era leader Putin praises – was a continuation of Lenin, rather than an aberration from him, as some in the West sympathetic to the Soviet Union long argued, is welcome, they fail to understand one important fact: Lenin himself was a continuation of Tsarist terrors that preceded him. However, this type of analysis requires a more in-depth knowledge of Russian history (as well as of broader Russian culture) than is held by a typical political pundit, academics who work on Russia within a larger field, rather than actual Russianists/Slavists who work in any given field, or the average writer of a Time magazine headline.

The Russian security state, from which Putin descends, is far more than a century old. It extends from at least 1565, when Ivan the Terrible – one of two Russian imperial leaders whom Putin praises – created the oprichniki, a secret police force established to oppress Ivan’s opponents through various forms of torment and torture, while also more generally terrorizing the entire Russian population. Boris Godunov, himself an oprichnik, later became tsar and is thus the first serving member of the security state, and one of only three in history, to lead Russia – the other two being Yuri Andropov and Putin himself. The security apparatus evolved to become the Okhrana under the later tsars and then morphed through a number of incarnations to become the KGB, in which Putin served, and then the FSB, which Putin briefly headed.

Putin’s actions against intellectuals who have stood up against his rule long precedes the oppression of writers in Soviet times, including those in the 1970s who revealed Soviet atrocities. Under Nicholas I, writers were censored and exiled, and it is here when began the long cycle of talented artists dying young, dying violently, and dying at the hands of the Russian state, whether directly or indirectly. The Golden Age of Russian Literature and Culture, which many cite as a reason not to blame all of Russia and Russian history for Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine, was not a Golden Age of Russian governance. Indeed, it set a precedent for how the Russian state – including its Soviet incarnation – would treat intellectuals through to and including during Putin’s reign.

While Putin’s shuttering of Memorial does not have such a precedent, this is because the existence of Memorial itself does not have a historical precedent. It is the result of a unique period of Russian history, when such an organization was allowed to exist. What Putin did, once its existence became inconvenient for him, was in line with what would have happened had it existed earlier in history. If Putin’s abuses seem more or crueler than in Russia’s past, it’s because social media has made it much easier to track and follow and for those who are being oppressed – or their representatives – to speak out. In reality, though, there is nothing new in how Putin has acted, and, it goes without saying that if there is another period of liberalization in which an organization such as Memorial can exist, it will almost certainly face a similar end under a new Putin. Even the liberalization period of Alexander II, who followed the oppressive Nicholas I, was not long-lived, while his son, Alexander III – the second Russian imperial leader Putin lauds – proved to be even more oppressive.

The simple fact is that Putin is not an aberration in Russian political history nor is he simply a product of his Soviet past. He is a continuation of centuries of Russian imperial history, complete with a brutal security apparatus likewise supported and lauded. Just as Putin is a product of historical Russia, his actions in Ukraine are a continuation of Russia’s historical actions in Ukraine, extending from Russian imperial times, through the Soviet Union, up until the present day. A thorough grounding in Russian and Ukrainian history makes both of these facts clear.

Add to those who misunderstand the situation US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, himself holding degrees in Social Studies and Law, but having no known Russian area studies knowledge, who recently stated: “We have no quarrel with the Russian people, who had no say in starting this tragic war. … The United States is not your enemy… For more than 30 years, we worked to pursue stable and cooperative relations with Moscow, because we believed that a peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia is in America’s interests … We still believe that today.” This, of course, is standard milquetoast boilerplate when trying to separate a leader the US wishes gone from his people. The problem here, though, is that Blinken misunderstands the support that Putin has from Russian people and the support that the full-scale war on Ukraine has amongst the Russian populace. Thus, our quarrel is, indeed, with the Russian people, particularly those who continue to express racist attitudes toward the Ukrainian people and who do not consider Ukraine to be a legitimate nation and, amongst Russians, there is a substantial number of such people.

Thus, it’s not that it’s become “Russia’s war,” as recently argued by Eugene Rumer and as accurately termed by Jade McGlynn in her eponymously titled book; it’s always been Russia’s war, from the first time they invaded Ukrainian lands centuries ago.

For those who argue that the domestic situation is too fraught for ordinary Russians to take to the streets in protest of Putin, tell that to young people in Hong Kong who still today, in the face of Xi Jinping’s continuing brutality that includes genocide against the Uyghur population of East Turkestan, stand up for basic human rights and democracy despite threats of long jail terms – or worse. What this means is that those optimistic about the next generation of Russian leadership, coming from today’s Russian youth, should have little reason to be so, for, even if this next generation were to consider a more liberal path, in order to do so, they would first have to successfully overcome the obstacle of being descendants of Russian imperial history and all that entails, and no one has yet been able to do so, especially with any permanence.

What is Justice for Ukraine?

/ jonathanzludwig

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s three-day war against Ukraine has now surpassed 150 days with no victory for Russia in sight. Russian military desperation has reached the point of begging Iran for drone support. The US Department of Defense estimates that Russia has committed at least 85% of its military might in their losing fight against Ukraine, and the intelligence community adds that, at its current rate, Russian forces may not be able to last the year.

While the West continues to find ways to support Ukraine, albeit painfully slowly at times, so that they can outlast Russia, it is imperative to think about what a post-war region and world should look like. In doing so, we must ask: What is justice for Ukraine?

In short, and at the most basic level, justice should be what Ukraine requires it to be. No desire of a Russian-hugging Germany to end the war by forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia for an “honorable peace” should be entertained. Among many reasons, Russia simply cannot be trusted to keep its word. Most recently, on 22 July 2022, Russia signed an agreement to allow the export of Ukrainian grain; on 23 July 2022 they bombed the port of Odesa from which the grain would travel. In response, Anthony Blinken, the milquetoast US Secretary of State, stated that the bombings cast “serious doubt” on Russia’s commitment to the deal, as if this were the first time Russia behaved in such a manner.

Russia cannot be trusted to honor any terms of any such peace because they have already openly stated their desire for the complete extermination of Ukraine and her people. Thus, it is only fitting that we, in response, contemplate the deconstruction of Russia as it exists today.

At the outset, it is important to understand that it is highly unlikely that Putin will ever see the inside of a courtroom, even if it is a condition of sanctions relief, for it is likely that the Russians themselves will kill Putin rather than risk the embarrassment of the world witnessing the resulting spectacle. However, this does not negate the necessity that other Russian officials be surrendered to The Hague in exchange for the slow easing of sanctions. These individuals could include Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov, GRU Director Admiral Igor Kostyukov, and any general or other high ranking officer who fought in or directed military action against Ukraine, should any manage to survive the days and weeks ahead. Lower-ranking and enlisted military personnel who commit war crimes must also face justice, but this could be done in Ukraine, following recent precedent.

Russia must rebuild Ukraine through significant war reparations. Of course, it will not be able to fund the immediate full reconstruction of Ukraine, so it is likewise imperative that a Marshall-style Plan be put together through which the West, with other like-minded nations around the world, can rebuild Ukraine quickly. Russian reparations will come from the full and complete seizure of all ill-gotten assets of the oligarchs, of Putin himself, as well as those of his inner circle, both in Russia and abroad, and from a set percentage of oil, natural resources, and agricultural sales and exports. Part of the Russian reparations should go directly to Ukraine, while another part should be directed toward reimbursing, at least in part, the nations contributing to the New Marshall Plan.

Western post-war reconstruction can also come in the form of educational support. Many Ukrainian academics and students have come to the West to further their research and studies, making valuable connections at institutions all over the world. In returning home, it is important that universities maintain these contacts, ensuring the Ukrainian scholars that they will not lose out by returning home and that they will have the necessary support to rebuild their institutions, thus continuing their work at home with help from abroad.

Just as was done with post-war imperial Japan, Russia must be demilitarized. At a minimum, no military forces should be allowed west of the Ural Mountains, i.e., in European Russia. They are unnecessary because NATO represents no offensive military threat, and, as Russia themselves must realize, its true existential threat comes from China in the east. Discussions around the full state of demilitarization should also include a discussion of the denuclearization of Russia. Their constant threat to respond to perceived aggression and, indeed, any emotional slight with nuclear strikes, as well as their clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum by which they kept their nuclear weapons, while others nations, including Ukraine, willingly gave theirs up, demonstrate that they are not responsible enough to hold nuclear weapons.

Russia must be required to withdraw from all occupied lands and territories. While this logically means they will be compelled to leave the parts of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine that they have invaded and occupied in recent years, this could also include a partial or full breakup of contemporary Russia into up to 28 new, independent nations. Such an action would involve freeing a number of the non-Russian parts of the Russian Federation, conquered and colonized during imperial times, that were not given the option of independence upon the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This would result in a full and complete decolonization of Russia, which would then return it to its Muscovite core.

The Russian educational system should be reformed and reconstructed so that its current and future students are compelled to face up to and fully understand its colonial/imperial past and present and, in so doing, begin to remake their national psyche. The West is constantly criticized for colonial actions undertaken generations ago, and a presentation of these actions are a part of their basic curriculum. After World War II, such re-education was forced on a defeated Germany, albeit with only mixed results, given the rise of the AfD and Germany’s continuing penchant for prioritizing deals with disreputable states, including Russia and China. Thus, it is only fitting that the same be attempted with a defeated Russia.

In short, Russia as it exists today, a colonial power with a colonialist tradition and history that stretches directly from imperial times, through Soviet times, and into the present, must cease to exist. The world needs to be in a position to ensure that it never returns to such a state.

NATO should be further enlarged to keep Russia in permanent check. The addition of Finland and Sweden, a direct result of recent Russian aggression, is a good start, but there are further nations, including in the Indo-Pacific, which also border Russia, that could be integrated. In fact, an Indo-Pacific version of NATO, stretching from Canada, the US, and Japan in the north, through Taiwan, and down to Australia, could be created. Such a grouping would extend beyond containing just Russia, of course. It can also be a counter to an increasingly aggressive and abusive China, which has its own continuing history of brutal colonialism.

The sad reality, though, is that it is unlikely that the West will push to require most, if any, of these actions, for some nations are already trying to extract themselves from supporting Ukraine. Germany continues to find loopholes to work with Russia, just as they continue to invent excuses to keep from sending the already minimal amount of support they have promised. Hungary, which in the years leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union was at the forefront of fighting for freedom and democracy, has taken a dark, authoritarian, pro-Russian turn under Victor Orban. Neither nation can be fully trusted to help Ukraine or support NATO actions.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Biden administration continues to do things in a half-measured way. Biden himself, along with his national security mouthpiece, Jake Sullivan, keep announcing what they will not do rather than keeping Putin guessing what will happen to him if he continues to push ahead. They do just enough to keep Ukraine going, thus prolonging the war and the suffering, while not doing enough to allow Ukraine to win. This continues a life-long aversion to foreign policy success on the part of both Biden and Sullivan, who were also jointly responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. They lack the courage, the vision, and the wisdom to do what needs to be done anywhere in the world.

Given the courage and abilities of Ukraine, it is now clear that if the level and type of military aid being given now had been given at the outset of hostilities, and if the Biden Administration had had the courage to establish a no-fly zone immediately, the war likely would already be over, and countless lives, both Ukrainian and Russian, would have been saved. While the war is solely Putin’s fault, the Biden administration has a lot to answer for both now and in the judgement of history. It will not be judged favorably.

Equally concerning are the recent actions of Representative Victoria Spartz (R/IN–05), herself a Ukrainian immigrant, who, after being a vocal supporter of Ukraine, has suddenly turned against further funding. While there are legitimate concerns about corruption, as there are whenever it comes to doling out foreign and military aid, it is equally important to note that Ukraine, under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, made pre-war strides to improve, an improvement that was interrupted by Putin’s war. Ukraine cannot de-corrupt itself if Russia, which is a significantly more corrupt nation, continues to destroy it.

Therefore, it is imperative that the West continue to take a strong stand, not only to defend Ukraine and defeat Russia, but to give a warning to China about what fate awaits if and when they decide to attack Taiwan. If we arrest, try, and imprison Russian war criminals and break up Russia into parts, then we can send the message that we will arrest, try, and imprison Chinese war criminals and break up China into parts, liberating East Turkestan and Tibet, among other future nations, and freeing a once-vibrant Hong Kong from tyranny. This will allow Taiwan to continue to serve as an example for democracy in the Chinese-speaking world, while imperial/colonial China, like imperial/colonial Russia, ends up on the ash-heap of history.

_________________________________________________

Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.

And Eastern Europe Shall Lead Them: Small Power Support for Taiwan and Ukraine

/ jonathanzludwig

As China has increased pressure on Taiwan, the independent nation they continue to claim falsely as part of their own, more and more countries in the democratic world have rallied to support the island nation. From late 2020 to today, these nations have sent delegations to visit, and there are growing cries from politicians and citizens alike within them to support Taiwan if it is attacked. Among the most visible were three congressional delegations from the United States: one bipartisan team of US Senators and two groups from the US House of Representatives.

China knows that there is little that they can do in response to US visits, so they simply make their protests known, and the United States duly ignores them. The same is true for visits from other larger nations, such as Japan and France. What has made them apoplectic, though, is the increasing number of visits from Eastern European nations, and the fact that these nations refuse to be bullied into submission by China’s “wolf warrior” vociferousness and economic threats.

The Czech Republic made the first move. In January 2020, Prague signed a sister-city agreement with Taipei, whereupon Shanghai, in a fit of pique, cancelled their own agreement with Prague. This was followed by the visit to Taiwan of Miloš Vystrčil, President of the Senate of the Czech Republic, after the death of his predecessor, who had been threatened by China for promising to make the very same visit. Since then, the Czech Republic has increased its ties, and a branch of the Prague-based non-governmental European Values Center for Security Policy has recently opened in Taipei. On 5 December 2021, a delegation of 43 Slovak government officials, business representatives, and academics arrived in Taipei for a multi-day visit, and in January 2022, Taiwan and Slovenia announced plans to open missions in each other’s nations. This happened after Prime Minister Janez Janša condemned China’s one-party dictatorship for lecturing the world on democracy and peace. China responded by imposing economic sanctions.

Lithuania, though, has made the strongest and most costly stand thus far. It permitted Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius, using the name Taiwan, in November 2021, after having already left Chinese-led 17 + 1 framework over the issue of China’s genocide of the Uyghurs. China responded to the August announcement of the embassy opening by withdrawing its ambassador, expelling Lithuanian diplomats, and demanding that the European Union (EU) punish Lithuania. In response, a delegation of MPs from all three Baltic states visited Taiwan at the end of November. Since then, Lithuania has been threatened by China economically. However, after facing down German demands that Lithuania apologize to China and mend its ways, the EU has taken China to the WTO in an action now also joined by Australia, which has faced its own economic bullying by China. The Czech Republic’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Security passed a resolution in support of Lithuania on 21 January 2022, an action that was applauded by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thus demonstrating the strength of Small Powers standing together.

This is not the first time that Eastern European nations have challenged the desires of Great Powers or risen up against them, for it happened during the height of Soviet-era domination. Yugoslavia broke away from the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1948 and became a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1956 there were revolts in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Czechoslovakia rose up in 1968. Poland was rarely trusted and generally feared over the years, in part because of the power of the Polish Catholic Church, which grew after the election of Cardinal Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978. Romania refused to join the Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Hungary and Czechoslovakia paid a heavy price for their bravery when the USSR sent tanks to crush them. However, they were two of the first countries to pull away from the USSR during the years of perestroika and glasnost, forcing Gorbachev’s hand in opening borders to the West, while the Baltic nations fought for independence from within.

Why these nations have stood strong is a matter of their own recent history: they remember what it was like to be invaded, conquered, dominated, and controlled by a brutal Communist power, just as they remember hoping that outside powers would come to their aid, only to realize that it was not going to happen. Thus, it is particularly telling that they are the ones to be on the front lines of standing with Taiwan, while others make excuses to keep from getting too deeply involved. They know what it is like to be ignored or abandoned during their time of need.

Therefore, it is not surprising that these very same nations are likewise standing up for Ukraine as it continues to be threatened with yet another Russian invasion. One of the leaders in this has been Lithuanian MP Matas Maldeikis, who is also the Head of the Parliamentary Group for Relations with Taiwan. In addition to ensuring that Lithuania, alongside other regional nations, have all made concrete, meaningful commitments to Ukraine, he has taken the most original soft-power stand by firing off two grade-A-level historically-accurate trolling tweets that demonstrate just how ridiculous Putin’s territorial demands are. The Czech Republic and the Baltic States have sent military aid. Outside of Eastern Europe, Denmark confirmed on 30 January 2022 that they are also prepared to send military aid, after initially sending only non-lethal aid. Turkey, which has edged more closely toward Russia in recent years, sent drones, which Ukraine used over Donbas. They have also promised to fulfill their NATO commitments, and non-NATO member Ireland can be proud their victory over the Russian Navy by a village of fishermen.

Meanwhile, the so-called “Great Powers” of Europe waffle with their support, standing strong in statements that are not matched with policy. France is largely lost in these debates, as it remains unclear where President Emmanuel Macron stands. He seems to hope that France can play a grand diplomatic role in the world, while doing little to ease immediate tensions. One would hope that Germany, which itself invaded neighboring countries and committed genocide in the 20th Century, would be convinced to stand against two nations now doing the same. However, this seems a bridge too far for them, even though Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks called them out for their “immoral and hypocritical” relationship with both China and Russia. In recent days, the Baltic nations and Poland have demanded that Germany openly state what they will do in support of Ukraine, while reminding them that the Germans themselves have relied on America support against Russia for the last seven decades.

The US foreign policy triumvirate of President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan through a combination of apathy and incompetence, have also been largely absent regarding both nations until very recently. The Biden Administration missed a key opportunity when rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), for they could have demanded full membership for Taiwan as a precondition for the return of the US. Inviting Taiwan to the Summit for Democracy was a good step. Cutting off Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s Digital Minister – and not being able to get their stories straight as to why it happened – was an embarrassment. Fortunately, while Biden has not led on this issue, others have been willing to step up and do so. Congress bucked the administration, passing the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act almost unanimously on 16 December 2021. This was over the strong objections of many in the Biden Administration, who did not want to risk their business and personal ties with China.

This failure extends to the situation in Ukraine. Biden immediately ruled out the use of US troops, signaling to Putin that he would not have to face or risk killing American forces. Only after having been openly ridiculed for using hashtag-support policy did Biden agree to move troops further east under NATO auspices, but the actual movement is dragging out very slowly. In addition, he seems incapable of making the simplest decisions necessary to break Putin: cut Russia off from SWIFT; seize and freeze the assets of oligarchs in the US; and withdraw visas of those oligarchs and their families living here, thus forcing them to contemplate life once again in Putin’s Russia. Even more important, over a year into the administration, Biden has still not nominated an ambassador to Ukraine.

Fortunately, the UK has stepped up where the US has thus far failed to do so. Just this weekend, they have promised to send over a thousand new troops, including special forces, to Estonia, to provide jets, boats, and specialists to NATO, and to put an aircraft carrier on increased readiness. In addition, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will visit Ukraine, while Foreign Secretary Liz Truss will go to Russia to talk to Putin directly. Her strong anti-Russian and anti-Chinese stances will make her presence an uncomfortable visit for Putin to negotiate, should he choose to meet with her, rather than hide in his bunker. Meanwhile Defense Secretary Ben Wallace will visit Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia, while the government prepares to take up an anti-oligarch bill that could end the negative reputation of “Londongrad.” This final action has finally spurred the United States to contemplate similar actions.

Putin has become trapped in a problem entirely of his own making because Small Power nations in Eastern Europe have shamed larger ones into supporting Ukraine more forcefully. He now finds himself in a position not only in which it will be difficult to win, but in which he might very well lose, both very badly and very bloodily. The larger powers of the West must likewise stand with Taiwan to show China that it faces the same reality. To stand up for and alongside both Taiwan and Ukraine guarantees being judged on the right side of history; to fail to do so means winding up on its ash heap.

_________________________________________________

Jonathan Z. Ludwig is a Teaching Associate Professor of Russian at Oklahoma State University.