Washington Profile has an interesting interview with Professor David Foglesong about his book The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881. I reviewed Foglesong’s book here a few months ago. Below are a few excerpts from the interview that I found interesting and pertinent to understanding where America’s “dark double” stands in the present:
Washington Profile: If we talk about the broader hope of the U.S. reshaping Russia, the United States has had a special mission throughout its history to bring democracy or enlightenment to the world, but you seem to suggest that Russia became America’s special project and as you put it, America’s dark twin. Why is this the case? Why Russia?
David Foglesong: There have been a lot of other countries that have played the role of a foil for American national identity at different moments in time, either as the demonic opposite of the United States or as an object of the American mission. For example, the idea of Christianizing and civilizing China was very important for affirmation of American philanthropic ideals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I would argue that Russia is not unique in that respect, but Russia has more persistently over a longer period of time been seen as both an object of the American mission and the opposite of American ideals and virtues. Why is that? I think that a set of attitudes that we first see in the late 19th century and early 20th century help to explain that. First, the idea that Russia is, despite the differences in the political system and despite the different histories, fundamentally like the United States and is destined to follow in its footsteps. The usual reasons that are pointed to are first, vast size, that Russia occupies a huge continental expanse just as the United States by the end of the 19th century, occupies a huge continental expanse. That supposedly contributes to an expansive personality of the people. Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis comes into circulation after 1893 with the idea that the frontier has been central to the shaping of an American democratic, egalitarian, individualist ethos and the idea comes into circulation that Russia is like the United States in having had a frontier experience. I think ideas like that are important in the presumption that Russia is like America and is destined to become more like America.
Two other factors are race and religion. Russians are explicitly defined as white, even though there are people who have ambivalence about that. I think the dominant understanding, and the dominant view of the crusaders for a free Russia like George Kennan, is that the Russians are white; sometimes they use the term “Aryan” to describe the Russians. That fits into an outlook that the Russians more than Asian peoples are fit to follow an American path to democracy and to a modern economy and to Christianity. There’s a great deal of enthusiasm among missionaries for the conversion of Russians because the idea is that they are nominally Christian. There is contempt for the Russian Orthodox Church as a corrupt, degenerate, backwards, superstitious form of Christianity, but nonetheless the argument goes that the ground has been prepared for the full Christianization of Russia by this background of almost 1,000 years of Christianity in Russia.
If we look at the current situation, you have said the rhetoric from the presidential candidates is unproductive. Has the United States learned anything from these historical experiences?
I think that some within the Bush administration, it seems to me particularly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have been more realistic, more moderate in their approaches. Not that they have abandoned all hope of encouraging political reform, but they don’t expect the United States to have extraordinary leverage over developments in Russia. They don’t expect overnight transformations and they also don’t veer to the opposite extreme of saying that Putin is reverting back to being a Stalin-like tyrant.
I do think this is somewhat encouraging. What’s disturbing is that you find in American political circles and in American journalistic circles an almost compulsive tendency to demonize figures in Russia that they hold responsible for Russia not becoming just like the United States. I think journalists assume that it is a good thing for there to be checks and balances in a political system, that you should have opposition parties. They assume on the basis of American experience that Russia should be like that and if it is not then it’s something pathological and terribly wrong.
Russia’s historical experience is quite different from America’s historical experience. Division of power doesn’t necessarily have a positive connotation for many Russians. Experiences of times with a division of power, whether it’s between Yeltsin and the parliament in the early 1990s or between the Provisional Government and the Soviet in 1917 are not necessarily positive in Russian historical memory. I think that some recent developments have been regrettable and unfortunate but there is a sort of impulse among American journalists and politicians in a very simplistic way to judge developments in Russian by American standards which may not be appropriate.
Do you see a difference between whether a Democrat or Republican becomes the next U.S. president in term of foreign policy towards Russia?
What I have read so far in the newspapers is not at all encouraging to me. In a piece I wrote for the History News Network a couple of weeks ago I expressed some worry about the direction already of the rhetoric in the political campaign: with McCain’s remarks about Putin, with Hillary Clinton’s really awful remark about Putin not having a soul, and even with Obama’s recent remarks. There is too much of a tendency to use Russia as a political football, to use Russia as foil, as a whipping boy, as a scapegoat. I think it’s really shortsighted to think that in the political campaign Americans can say all sorts of things about Russia’s leaders and not expect it to have reverberations down the road in American – Russian relations. This reminds me of the way that Vice-President George H. W. Bush told Gorbachev in 1987: I’m going to say lots of terrible things about the Soviet Union during the 1988 political campaign but you should just forget about it because it’s just politics.
Do you see any way to break out of this cycle with a new president coming in?
The way I look at it there doesn’t seem to be a broad mass resonance in American society to this kind of demagogic appeal from political candidates. I think in earlier phases when politicians and non-governmental crusaders for Russian freedom like the first George Kennan went out on the lecture circuit and denounced tsarist tyranny they were able to evoke a wider, more enthusiastic popular response. I don’t sense that degree of popular resonance for the kind of rhetoric we’re seeing nowadays.
If you look at the popular reaction to Time Magazine’s making Putin “Man of the Year,” a number of the remarks put on Time’s website were troubling. Americans were saying Putin is evil, how dare you put Putin on the cover, let’s all get together and burn our copies of Time magazine. However, I don’t sense that this is a very widespread popular demonization of Russia, in part because the United States has so many other problems on its plate.
I also think that there has been some sobering up of the expectations that it is in America’s power to reshape Russia in America’s image. I can’t foresee what might happen five years down the road if there are some unfortunate developments in Russia, and if Americans have the ability to focus more on Russia as opposed to the problems of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. domestic economy. The situation could change. For now, I don’t sense that the demagoguery about Putin not having a soul and about looking into Putin’s eyes and seeing only KGB is evoking a broad popular response.
How do Americans, not politicians, view Russia today? What do they most misunderstand about Russia?
I think there are really varied attitudes towards Russia among different elements of the American population. I think that there are people who are involved in the growing trade with Russia who are aware of some promising developments in the Russian economy beyond just the export of fossil fuels, and I think that many of the people in business are inclined not to veer to the two extremes of either expecting overnight democracy along American lines or feeling that there is a regression to Stalinist tyranny.
I do think that among journalists and among some politicians there are the habits and impulses of the past. The New York Times recently suggested it was necessary to revert back to the style of the 1970s, when Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn were among the dissidents that we supported and we amplified their voices. I think there are people in American journalistic circles, especially editorial writers for the Washington Post, who have an emotional impulse to condemn Russia for backsliding on democracy and to overstate the potential menace to the outside world from Russia. Although there have been some troubling developments in Putin’s Russia, such American journalists tend to exaggerate them, to lack historical perspective, and to have unrealistic expectations about the extent of American influence on Russia.
Beyond that, it’s hard for me to say what ordinary Americans think about Russia; I think it’s a complicated and varied picture.
Chrius Maximus,
What you and ‘ivanov’ are doing is validating the view that Russian patriots are boorish and dense types.
Perhaps your intentions are good, but you are going about it totally wrong way.
When you respond to valid criticism with sniding comments and proclamations like, “What foreigners think about Russia is not Russian problem” you can’t even begin to imagine how jarring it sounds to many in the West.
For example, the US is powerful enough to be even more dismissive and yet one of the main issues Americans are concerned about is how to improve their country’s image among other nations.
Congrats, Chrius Maximus!
You are awarded The “Russian patriot” title from now on!!!
It’s 100% valid as it was given to you by American patriot Candid
PS. This is first time I’m called the Russian dense patriot. Usually I get only medal “За Путина”
When you respond to valid criticism with sniding comments and proclamations like, “What foreigners think about Russia is not Russian problem” you can’t even begin to imagine how jarring it sounds to many in the West.
100% correct. What foreigners think of Russia is Russia’s second biggest problem. The fact that Russians don’t think so is the biggest.
Like it or not, Russia is hugely dependent on the world — for goods and services, for diplomatic support, for ambient moral support.
Russian tourists turned away from resort hotels in Switzerland or the Mediteranean have Ivanov and Chrisius (and like-minded others of course) to blame, because they stupidly contribute to the perception of Russian arrogance, insularity and resistance to external opinion. Russian good will in the world could not be much worse. Good will, though intangible, nonetheless has value, and lack of it generates higher prices for imports and discounts on the value of assets (eg, even Gazprom could be worth more than its current share price dictates).
This whole “who cares what foreigners think” thing is self-destructive and, needless to say, completely untrue, because in my experience Russians actually care very much what outsiders think. Ex-pats — Russians abroad and Americans in Russia — enjoy being contrarian from time to time.
“You are awarded The “Russian patriot” title from now on!!!
It’s 100% valid as it was given to you by American patriot Candid”
I am a German-American.
(How is caring about comfort and happiness “boorish”?)
However, let us think — my great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. American Indians originally derive from Siberia. Therefore, I am a Chukcha, and can apply for Russian citizenship on the grounds of being an indigenous Russian tribesman!
Getting back to the subject of religion. I went to grad school in the 90s at Catholic University of America, which is (duh) a Catholic school. The philosophy department, composed mostly of Catholic intellectuals, was split roughly 50-40-10 between Thomists, phenomenologists (like me), and a mass of others. Anyway at the time there was a very strong interest among the more liberal Catholic intelligentsia in Orthodox Christianity. In fact, my roommate converted, which created a large scandal in his conservative Catholic family.
“For example, the US is powerful enough to be even more dismissive and yet one of the main issues Americans are concerned about is how to improve their country’s image among other nations.”
Do you think so? This is not a rhetorical question — I haven’t lived in the US for years and years, but I certainly don’t remember it being that way. Maybe things have changed.
Fh, my position with respect to foreign (by this I really mean “Anglo-American” and to some extent “French” and “German,” since are the sources to which I am linguistically limited) perceptions of Russia is not really that it is unimportant, but rather one of resigned exasperation. The level of knowledge is so low, and the media coverage so clueless, that I have given up. It will never change. Que sera, sera.
All you have to do for a glaring example is look at the evolving AA/F/G media coverage of Chechnya over the past 10 or so years, in which the interpretive paradigm shifted constantly and was always wrong.
“Russian tourists turned away from resort hotels in Switzerland or the Mediteranean have Ivanov and Chrisius (and like-minded others of course) to blame,”
I think mainly what they have to blame is Hollywood movies, in which Russians are depicted entirely as mafiosi or prostitutes. I have lost count of the number of times people in the States have asked me if I’ve ever had an encounter with the Russian Mob, or beaten up because I’m an American. (rolls eyes)
“Well, some people would probably get robbed in the meantime…”
It can happen in any situation. For example lets look at Felix Komarov. This Doctor and “businessman” are typical con-artist. Why? you will ask. What A manners he has!
His ambitious nature drives him on the top: “Rolls Royces,”, Art Gallery in New York City, Club “Moscow” in New York, other projects… But where is results? All projects were not successful, becauseto be an ambitious person is not enough to succeed in business.
How Felix Komarov works? He suggesting to companions that he has brain-child, successful in future business-idea. He gets support. Spends money, waste people time and energy. And at the end – everybody disspointed and understand that Felix Komarov was empty ball with all his ambitions.
He used to build his reputation by self sponsored articles in top publications and front pages. But it is bluff for masses. Those who stay closer, his partners know the real situation. Ambitious looser Felix Komarov uses people comfortable free rides. He doesn’t like to pay bills. he owes to everybody. And still continue draw the fake picture of the own “Life Success.”
Some people like to be famous no matter what. One of that people is con Felix Komarov. He has no abilitiy get success and be fair, he can’t afford it. And all that picture that he draw: Rockfeller Club, Rolls Royces, etc. He stopped on the neck to many people trying to do his ambitious, but not successful projects. To grow ‘brain-child’ need to have brain…
Flix Komarov victimise those who less ambitious or more sensitive; he moves forward leaving them without money that he owes them, without hope and optimism.
Desperate for success, looser Felix Komarov had his burthday and announced it. He still thinks that it is important for general public. Probably he thinks he’s as big as Bulgakov or Lev Tolstoi…
Comedy continues…
I have lost count of the number of times people in the States have asked me if I’ve ever had an encounter with the Russian Mob, or beaten up because I’m an American. (rolls eyes).
I thought I was the only one who got these questions! Especially the mafia one.
Chrisius Maximus,
Yes, improving the country’s image abroad was a big concern in the US all through the years of Bush’s Presidency and is one of the major issues in the current Presidential elections. It’s omnipresent, you can’t get away from it.
However, let us think — my great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee.
That explains the tomahawk you were carrying in Moscow.
The level of knowledge is so low, and the media coverage so clueless, that I have given up. It will never change. Que sera, sera.
This sounds like media coverage eveywhere, not just media coverage of Russia. British journalists covered the story of a friend of mine falling off a mountain in Romania a few years back. Between a few of them, they got his name wrong, his age wrong, his hometown wrong, his job wrong, the distance he fell varied between 40m and 200m, and half of what they wrote bore no resemblance to what he had told anyone. One paper went to far to make up a line that he had seen a wolf whilst he was lying injured. In every single news story I have read of which I have had personal knowledge, the reports are full of glaring, basic errors. I can only assume that a foreign paper covering another country is full of similar errors. Journalism seems to be 10% research, 50% creative writing, and 40% Chinese whispers.
“Journalism seems to be 10% research, 50% creative writing, and 40% Chinese whispers.”
Heh, I should think all here could agree on this point.
As for the possibility of foreigners getting jumped in Russia, I was under the impression gangs of soccer hools, skinheads, etc, should be avoided whilst in country, if you are not able to disguise your nationality. Is there any truth to this? If so, are they pretty easy to avoid, like gangs in the US.
One other stupid question. Which is safer, between these two extremes: touristy/affluent parts of Moscow or small backwater towns with populations below say 10K. I guess I have this impression, that the further you get off the beaten path in Russia, the greater your exposure to being harassed either by the militsia or locals. On the other hand, you would think small towns in Russia would be like small towns in the US. The people would be curious but polite and helpful.
I don’t know if they are representative, but the small towns in northern Sakhalin Island – away from the capital and the areas where you can find some work – are bloody dangerous. One of my friends here who enjoys close ties (sometimes I suspect membership) with the Sakhalin and Khabarovsk mafias and hence can go almost anywhere untouched stays well clear of towns like Okha and Nogliki. They are too small and remote to retain anyone with half a brain, leaving behind ill-educated drug addicts who will beat someone to death for 10 roubles. They are seriously dangerous places for Russians to go, let alone foreigners, and let alone dark-skinned foreigners.
Fortunately, I’ve managed to stay well clear of these places, staying mainly in the larger regional towns and cities where foreigners are generally okay. Dark skinned foreigners seem to have a tough time everywhere, even in areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
“This sounds like media coverage eveywhere, not just media coverage of Russia.”
Oh, sure. I’m sure it’s just as abysmal with respect to other places that I don’t know anything about.
“As for the possibility of foreigners getting jumped in Russia, I was under the impression gangs of soccer hools, skinheads, etc, should be avoided whilst in country, if you are not able to disguise your nationality. Is there any truth to this? If so, are they pretty easy to avoid, like gangs in the US.
One other stupid question. Which is safer, between these two extremes: touristy/affluent parts of Moscow or small backwater towns with populations below say 10K.”
I would say definitely Moscow, or any big city, is safer than a backwater town. (I must qualify this because as far as racist violence goes that seems to be largely a big urban issue.)
I certainly have never, ever felt in danger because of my nationality. No, that’s not true — I did make a point of keeping my mouth shut around the one and only group of rampaging skinheads I ever saw. Then again, although I don’t like Slavic I am of European descent, so I am not a skinhead target.
I have been mugged in Moscow, but it was after midnight, I was drunk off my ass, and decided to take a shortcut through the dark park. Not a smart idea. I was also mugged (and beaten up) in Washington DC, and that was in broad daylight in a residential nrighborhood. My impression based purely on personal experience is that Moscow’s streets are pretty safe — the great majority of violence being domestic.
My impression based purely on personal experience is that Moscow’s streets are pretty safe — the great majority of violence being domestic.
That was my first impression too. The most likely source of confrontation is militia men. Compared to Manchester, Moscow is like walking about in your living room.
The militia men are the biggest problem.
I can imagine it must be incredibly difficult and depressing to try to be a good cop in Russia.
“If so, are they pretty easy to avoid, like gangs in the US.”
I forgot to mention. In my 8 years in Moscow, I have encountered a group of skinheads precisely once. My understanding is that they go to particular areas in which they think they can acquire victims.
This is one of those instances in which the badness of an already bad situation is exaggerated by the media.
“I thought I was the only one who got these questions! Especially the mafia one.”
Well people’s view of the world is shaped first and foremost through entertainment media and then only to a small extent through the news media (which is in part why I think obsessing about media pundits and their nefarious influence a la Averko misses the point). If Hollywood says it, it’s true.
You must have had Russians ask you if Santa Barbara, jerry Springer, or whatever Will Smith movie vehicle was an accurate depiction of American life. I know I have.
Speaking of which, can you imagine what a gold mine for Soviet propaganda Jerry Springer would have been, if it had existed at the time? Talk about the decadent capitalist West!
“Well people’s view of the world is shaped first and foremost through entertainment media and then only to a small extent through the news media (which is in part why I think obsessing about media pundits and their nefarious influence a la Averko misses the point). If Hollywood says it, it’s true.”
****
Just passing thru in a very rare excursion.
The above quoted Doss once gain misrepresents what Averko knows and believes.
It’s not only mass media propped pundits, but the raw news reporting as well; which often takes the form of punditry under the guise of straight news reporting. Not to be overlooked is the connection some influential news folks have with government.
It has been said that the mentioned “entertainment media” has had an influence on the “news media”.
Just setting the record straight AGAIN.
Well people’s view of the world is shaped first and foremost through entertainment media and then only to a small extent through the news media (which is in part why I think obsessing about media pundits and their nefarious influence a la Averko misses the point).
This is probably true for world affairs. I’d guess that domestic affairs are driven largely by the media though, especially in the UK.
In my 8 years in Moscow, I have encountered a group of skinheads precisely once.
I encounter them all the time in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, usually near an army barracks.
I can imagine it must be incredibly difficult and depressing to try to be a good cop in Russia.
Some of them are okay. The one who pulled me over yesterday and found I had mistakenly allowed my car insurance to expire last October generously believed my false story that I’d renewed it but left the papers in my office, and allowed me to drive away in my car with only a fine to pay. A horrible bastard would have reduced my Land Cruiser to a metre cube.
“This is probably true for world affairs. I’d guess that domestic affairs are driven largely by the media though, especially in the UK.”
People normally have a basic understanding about what things are actually like in their own country, so their bullshit detector goes off a lot more easily. Also, domestic policy usually has a much more obvious and direct effect on the lives of people in the country, so there is more market quality-control. Plus, bullshit is a lot more likely to get you sued.
“I have lost count of the number of times people in the States have asked me if I’ve ever had an encounter with the Russian Mob, or beaten up because I’m an American. (rolls eyes).”
Am I the exception that proves the rule? I’ve been ask the same question more than once and my answer (about the mafia) was always in the affirmative. What’s interesting is that my impression (from the stories of other people) was that that my case was not that exceptional at all. Of course, that was during what here are considered the very dark times of the Yeltsin era. Who knows, perhaps it was simply the luck of the draw, or perhaps it was that back then there were fewer Westerners (including Russian Americans) in Russia and things were indeed more chaotic and less established. My impression back then was that people working for well established Western firms didn’t have much to worry about (their Russian fixers handled things so their hands could stay clean), but there was no escape for the small time Western entrepreneurs. Among other things, they quickly learned what krysha means.
I’ve never encountered them. The heyday of the Mafia is supposed to have been around 1995. I think kryshas have been fading away throughout the 2000s, though I have never been in a management position where I would have to deal with one. I very much doubt my current employer has one at all; I never hear about them anymore here or elsewhere. Maybe things are different in other parts of Russia.
The trolling troll trolls as he trolls about trolling in his trolling way, trollishly trolling, being a trolling troll with a troll like manner.
“People normally have a basic understanding about what things are actually like in their own country, so their bullshit detector goes off a lot more easily. Also, domestic policy usually has a much more obvious and direct effect on the lives of people in the country, so there is more market quality-control. Plus, bullshit is a lot more likely to get you sued.”
Georges Pompidou, who suceeded de Gaulle, had a theory of mistakes in politics which was that errors in domestic matters caused a huge fuss and were not very important but that mistakes in foreign relations attracted little or no attention but were very significant and over along period. Of course he died long before George Bush the second was thought of.
Chris, it can only be good news if you are indeed correct that the kryshas that were so pervasive in the 1990s are now primarily a thing of the past. Back then if you were an enterprising fellow who wanted to run your own business you got it from both sides. You got your blood sucked blood out from the goons kindly offering you a krysha as well as from the bureaucrats who treated their positions as private toll booths. I’m sure that later they became more efficient, but back then sometimes they were too crude in their greediness and by demanding too much often starved to death some of the geese that were laying those golden eggs.
Another things to remember how incredibly wide spread was the black market in the Soveit Union of the 1980s. That’s how some of the Russian mobsters got their start. In addition, though, many of the most successful entrepreneurs of post-Soviet Russia got their start as black market speculators in the 1980s (even if not as a full time occupation). Such a formative experience undoubtedly had quite an influence on how they approach things such as laws, regulations, functionaries, and so on.
CD/TN
Moscow is certainly a funny city in that its not dangerous at all really, especially considering its size. It does have shitty areas-Butovo springs to mind -but unlike bad areas in the west, including Ireland, there isnt any sense of ”this is a dangerous shithole, my life is in danger”. In all my time in Moscow the only fight I had was with -an American. In the Boar House. Never once were my goals threatened in Moscow. I would say with a fair degree of confidence that Dublin is more dangerous than Moscow. The big problem with Moscow, however, are the cops…..
Doss resorts to trolling again in a troll like manner, trolling. Answering trolling isnt trolling. Trolls can and should be defeated. Troll!
”Just passing thru in a very rare excursion.”
Shouldnt that be ‘incursion’?
”Never once were my goals threatened in Moscow.”
Sorry this is a football term. I mean I was never in any danger of a beating in Moscow, nobody ever attacked me or tried to, and I’m not big at all.
”Never once were my goals threatened in Moscow.”
Sorry this is a football term. I mean I was never in any danger of a beating in Moscow, nobody ever attacked me or tried to, and I’m not big at all.
Cheer up – there’s always a first time.
”Cheer up – there’s always a first time.’
Thanks for that Robert:-)
My brilliant response to Ger seems to have been caught by the spam filter!
Kolya (welcome back BTW!), I don’t have any real data on this but can only speak from my own experience. I know that a few years ago (up until 2003 or so) it seemed like every business establishment in Moscow from cafe to bank had a flat-topped guy with a gun hanging around it somewhere. They aren’t there anymore.
Checked the spam filter. No brilliant response from the great Chrisius Maximus! It must have been intercepted by some barbarian horde.
I should have known it was those damn Gauls. When will they learn not to fuck with the posts of a favorite of the Divine Emperor Regal Augustus — it will only come to bite them in the ass.
What I said was that I think Moscow’s lack of dangerous neighborhoods is connected to the fact that, as a Soviet legacy, it does not have ghettoes, but with some exceptions like the rich people mostly live in the same apartments they had in Soviet days, regardless of their current socioeconomic status. Thus, you have people who are working class, poor, middle class, poor pensioners, intellectuals, the unemployed etc. all living in the same buildings/regions, whereas Western cities are economically divided up and you have areas that are very poor and areas that are very rich. Street crime usually correlates with poverty. There are no high concentrations of poverty, and so there are no high concentrations of street crime.
”There are no high concentrations of poverty, and so there are no high concentrations of street crime.”
It certainly seems that way in Moskva, which is a great thing of course. I think its fair to say that its a safe enough city.
By the way, I seem to be the only person here interested in religion, but anyway–
Does anybody notice that the stuff mentioned about US views of Orthodox Christianity (really, this means US Protestant views), are the same as their views of Catholics? Catholics are superstitious, corrupt, backward, etc.