When I was invited by my late good friend
Dietrich André Loeber to Europe to do some academic research on East-West relations at the University of Kiel in 1974, Professor Loeber (see
Gert von Pistohlkors),
whose father had been a Latvian Supreme Court Justice between the world
wars, was from my point of view probably the most knowledgeable person
in the West about important practical aspects of the Soviet Union, and
remained so until his death in 2004.
Loeber was a
descendant of Martin Luther by ancestry, a Baltic-German by heritage,
spoke fluent German, English, Latvian and Russian, and had great
affection for Latvia and Riga, which was his boyhood home. He was by
predilection a jurist and academic through and through and had an almost
naturally diplomatic character. If he disagreed with you, the worst
that he might say would be, "I am not sure...." He may have been a quiet
patriot, but politics "as such" was not his game, and that was his
great strength.
He was able to travel to and from the
Soviet Union with relative ease because he kept a low profile, was very
fair and objective in his academic publications, rarely if ever took
partisan sides on any issue, and maintained good relations with all
persons he dealt with, East or West. As I wrote
previously:
"Loeber
himself was a consummate expert on Russia, and when he visited me in
New York City in 1974 to invite me to work with him in Kiel, he
predicted that the then Soviet Union
(the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also called the USSR) would
fall apart within the next 20 years. Had I not believed his
prognostication, I would never have left the United States to come to
Europe. As it turned out, less than 20 years later, in 1991, the Soviet
Union in fact ceased to exist, and the Baltic States regained their
independence, just as Loeber had predicted. He viewed this development
as inevitable, and, it would appear now, in an era of the global sharing
of knowledge and information, as irreversible. The old days could
never return. Something new was coming, and had to come."
What
that "something new" will be in the Russian Federation is still in the
process of development, as the current political situation clearly
indicates. The impressive Winter Olympic Games at Sochi showed that a
modern Russia is possible and that great strides have been made on the
road to progress. At the same time, the current political situation in
Ukraine shows that "old" Russia is to some unknown degree still present
among the Russian leadership.
How would Loeber have viewed the present situation?
"I am not sure...."
One aspect of the present situation, as written by Ellen Barry at the New York Times, is surely that
Foes of America in Russia Crave Rupture in Ties.
But is Barry fundamentally right in her analysis?
"I am not sure...."
There
is unquestionably a strong "old guard" in Russia, as in all other
countries as well. The resurrection of "old" Russia would invariably go
hand in hand with the resurrection of countering forces in the USA and
Europe. We do not see how that would be good for anyone. Do we really
want their revival?
Indeed, the situation in Crimea and
Ukraine could shift the next Presidential election in the USA to the
advantage of the more conservative Republicans, who now have a strong
argument that political moderation and appeasement are not the right
solution for US foreign policy toward the Russian Federation. When one
"iron fist" comes onto the table, more such "iron fists" appear
elsewhere. The world is then "at odds" -- and who profits?
The
older generations are passing and new generations are coming -- faced
with a digital era that puts different demands upon them and requires
new and different solutions than the often flawed formulas of
yesteryear.
We live in an "information" age that would
make new "Cold Wars" rather senseless. People simply know too much
today, so that modern life is not possible by keeping citizens
uninformed or isolated. It is an age of more expanded, not more limited
communications. Nations should rather ask: how can we improve the lives
of our people through that development?
This does not
mean, of course, that countries can not take new directions, or shift
emphasis from one part of the globe to another. Everyone has the right
to follow their self-interest. Recognition of that fact would help
everyone. See for its instant impact on future developments the new:
Law on ratifying Russian-Chinese agreement on simplifying reciprocal travel procedures.
We
ourselves are of the opinion that American influence is waning
worldwide and that being a "Cold Warrior" or not has little impact on
that development. Here in Europe, for example, America is no longer the
vanguard of the future it was once seen to be. It has lost much of its
role model status for others.
Indeed, the vast
inequality of income and wealth in the United States and the battle over
basic health care for its citizens -- an accepted fact of life in all
other industrialized nations -- shows that America has strayed badly
from its ideals, ideals which have always been the source of its
strength as a nation.
Nations seeking the "best" for
everyone and not just for themselves have always been rare on the world
scene, and now appear to be rarer still.
In any case,
historical "personalities" were an item of interest for Dietrich André
Loeber in his academic studies, and I recall his interest in
Mikhail Bakunin,
part of whose -- what we might today call "libertarian" -- philosophy
may be finding resonance in top echelons of Russian leadership:
"Bakunin
... rejected the notion of any privileged position or class, since the
social and economic inequality implied by class systems (as well as
systems of national and gender oppression) were incompatible with
individual freedom. Whereas liberalism insisted that free markets and constitutional
governments enabled individual freedom, Bakunin insisted that both
capitalism and the state, in any form, were incompatible with the
individual freedom of the working class and peasantry.
"[I]t
is the peculiarity of privilege and of every privileged position to
kill the intellect and heart of man. The privileged man, whether he be
privileged politically or economically, is a man depraved in intellect
and heart."
Bakunin's political beliefs were based on several interrelated concepts: (1) liberty; (2) socialism; (3) federalism; (4) anti-theism; and (5) materialism. He also developed a (resultantly prescient)[26]
critique of Marxism, predicting that if the Marxists were successful
in seizing power, they would create a party dictatorship "all the more
dangerous because it appears as a sham expression of the people's
will."[27]
Those,
for example, who might think that the present Russian President,
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, is a resurgent Communist or Marxist, would
be very wrong. Quite the contrary, he surely views himself as being the
leader for the true expression of the Russian people's "will".
For
those who can read German, click the link below to read the somewhat
dated but still greatly informative and superb article at Die Welt by
Edith Kohn, from which it appears that Putin early saw himself as "a
soldier", and today perhaps similarly may see himself as "a soldier for
his country", whose aim it is to restore the strength and greatness of
Russia.
Vladimir Putin: Ein Geheimagent im Geiste
Recall
that we ourselves have a Baltic background and have no reason to write
favorably about Russia. However, if one is to understand the world, as
Loeber would have recommended, one must be objective in understanding
events and personalities.
In the case of Russia, Putin and the future, Loeber might have said -- for now:
"I am not sure...."
