Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

May 19, 2008 |  3 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Andrei Tsygankov

The Russophobia Card

Andrei Tsygankov: The US presidential candidates are increasingly playing the Russophobia card in their campaigns. In addressing Russia, Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton have resorted to insulting President Vladimir Putin as a KGB spy who has no soul. Russophobia is truly back into fashion, as Senator Joseph Biden admitted last week.

US politicians can hardly claim that they know a lot about Russia. Unable to even pronounce names of Russia's leading politicians, many in the U.S. establishment are nevertheless convinced of Russia's inherent propensity to violate its own citizens' rights and bully other nations.

The attacks on Putin and President-elect Dmitry Medvedev are widely supported in mainstream U.S. media. This demagoguery also extends to scholarly publications, such as "The New Cold War" by Edward Lucas, who claims that "Russia's vengeful, xenophobic and ruthless rulers have turned the sick man of Europe into a menacing bully." Just published, the book is getting a lot of publicity and is treated as a serious treatise by influential organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite the anti-Russia rhetoric, many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter in the global arena. Instead, they are preoccupied with other international issues, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But Russia should matter, particularly in a world of new security threats and growing energy competition. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia tells us volumes about the U.S. unpreparedness for the central challenges of the 21st century.

Russophobia's revival is indicative of the fear shared by some U.S. and European politicians that their grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites may not succeed if Russia's economic and political recovery continues.

One Russophobic group, exemplified by McCain, includes military hawks or advocates of U.S. hegemony who fought the Cold War not to contain the Soviet enemy but to destroy it by all means available. The second group is made up of "liberal hawks" who have gotten comfortable with the weakened and submissive Russia of the 1990s. They have an agenda of promoting U.S.-style democracy and market economy. The fact that the Soviet threat no longer exists has only strengthened their sense of superiority.

Finally there are lobbyists representing East European nationalists who have worked in concert with ruling elites of East and Central European nations to oppose Russia's state consolidation of power as well as promote NATO expansion, deployment of elements of a U.S. missile-defense system in Poland and Czech Republic, and energy pipelines circumventing Russia. These groups have diverse but compatible objectives of isolating Russia from European and U.S. institutions. Because of a lack of commitment to a strong relationship with Russia in the White House, a largely uninformed public and the absence of a Russian lobby within the United States, the influence that these groups exert on policymaking has been notable.

Russophobia is not in U.S. national interests and is not supported by the American public. Various polls demonstrate that Americans do not agree with the assessment that Russia is a threat to the United States' values and interests. A recent BBC World Service poll revealed, for example, that 45 percent of Americans have a mainly positive attitude regarding Russia's influence in the world, compared with 36 percent who have a mainly negative attitude.

Yet Russophobia-driven groups have generally succeeded in feeding the media an image of Russia as an increasingly dangerous regime. Thousands of reports in the mainstream U.S. media implicate the Kremlin and Putin personally in murdering opposition journalists and defected spies. Only a handful of reports in less prominent outlets question such interpretations.

Although it matters greatly which candidate will enter the White House in November, the more important issue is whether there will be a fundamental psychological adjustment in Washington away from Russophobia.

To be sure, the healing of the U.S. Russophobic mindframe is going to require a lot of time. Winston Churchill once commented that U.S. politicians "always do the right thing in the end. They just like to exhaust all the alternatives first." If this indeed is the case, we will not see a framework for meaningful cooperation with Russia any time soon.

Andrei Tsygankov is associate professor of international relations at San Francisco State University.

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | US-Russian relations | Russia | media |
 
Comments
Marek  Swierczynski

May 19, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mistaking strong criticism of the Kremlin for Russophobia the Author does not seem to accept the view that perhaps Russia has deserved this criticism over recent years and maybe even contributed to the level of scrutiny it is experiencing. He does not address any of the issues that provokes the criticism and avoids considering the allegations and facts behind these issues. He states bluntly that Russia faces a campaign of malice driven by ideologically infatuated mujahadeens that once again want to overthrow the "evil empire". But facts speak against that view: it is the US that consults with Russia on missile defence, it is the EU and NATO that include - not isolate - Russia in bodies like EU-Russia and NATO-Russia Councils, it is the EU that offers strategic energy co-operation with Russia and it is the US that signed a landmark nuclear agreement with Russia quite recently. Would that all have happened, had the "Russophobic mindframe" be well-rooted among the policy-makers in the US and EU? The outstanding issues may be serious, but the US seem to be far better-off co-operating with Russia, helping it and taking on board whenever possible than isolating it, pushing out of international co-operation, let alone bullying. And it will not change in the next presidency, regardless who moves in there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Tags: | Russia | criticism | Russophobia | USA | EU |
 
Member deleted

May 24, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It is interesting to see Russophobia after Islamophobia and sometimes the belated and barely visible Sinophobia that one encounters in discussions in many places. Many discussions in those places are indicative of US-Phobia and NATO-phobia and Christian-phobia! Self-fulfilling prisoner's dilemma at play, or sought to be put in...?
What would be in the immediate interest of the security of the Trans-Atlantic community and also global community? They are linked in an inter-dependent world and trade-figures are meant to augment the human development indices of societies that they are meant to reflect the health of.
Real differences of opinions or the amnesia of a global village that appears as immediately medieval in its distribution of power and capabilities? Somehow Prof. Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilization' thesis and the medieval global village scenario seem to tie in rather neatly. Yet, something fuels them together - in enough numbers to frustrate the designs of the most capable of statespersons, while every voice speaks of 'securing' the state or a group of states thrown together by history or sometimes - their shared comman non-histories of antagonisms. Andrei captures the moment rather beautifully. The issue here is: what propels those disparate and seemingly inchoate forces that almost celebrate their ability to frustrate the designs of the most capable of statespersons in quest of peace and prosperity? They usually are intelligent enough to know the interdependence of the world.
Perhaps equally well, if not more, as those disparate and inchoate forces that seek to disable the global for their 'local' designs, while drawing their sustenance from the various channels of the global! Securing the Trans-atlantic region is inescapably a global initiative and of the most capable, in theory, of states and statespersons upon earth.
Yet, within the global - who funds those that seek to disable the global for their 'local' designs. Not Johan Galtung or even Prof. Samuel P. Huntington. In the play and game of phobias, what would be the objective of those that engineer it? Commonly speaking, the contemporary notion of the state enjoins securing its citizens and the citizens of its alliance partners. Given the global nature of security issues involved here - would such 'phobias' really hold water or is the global community a hostage to phobias that are deftly exploited by those that seek the most to disable the global initiative - of peace, at the end of it all.
 
Ilyas M. Mohsin

June 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Phobias appear to make good business, generally, but more so for the US think tanks. The latter have to deal with the public which is blissfully ignorant of most things beyond their own state. Imagine they elected George W for the White House in2000 when he had not known where Iraq was. His world-experience was was limited to a vist to Mexico as a Governor of Texas. As McCellan has established, the Administartion used 'propaganda' to frighten the Americans in to re-electing him in 2004 on the basis of, mainly, Iraqi WMD.
Huntingdon made a name by inventing a War of Civilizations. There appear to be lobbies which promote such perverse thinking to stay in business. Such material also comes in handy for the politicians for policy/ propaganda.
looking back, one would discover a lower order of conspiract-theories spread by the warring parties in the World war 11. They never had access to the info-revolution which burst in to the Post-1945 world and now the sky appears to be limit.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website