It is sad that few Americans understand the historical significance of global politics and policy in terms of global stability in the last 100 years. Foreign policy within the context of global stability, is not a part of our educational requirements in primary and secondary schools, and even at the college level is relegated to specific programs in political science, history and international policy.  I often question whether our elected officials have taken the time to study the history of global politics and policy as it is played out domestically and internationally. Since we have little fundamental knowledge, individuals are easily biased by their allegiance to parties, politicians, and news sources.  Individuals internalize these biases and they become active parts of their cognition and beliefs, driving a polarizing reality of social media infighting that has no substantive or rational discourse, given the fact that neither side has the knowledge to engage in rational dialogue, that extends beyond “believing what you have been told” by those to whom you have “sworn allegiance.”  

When I think of American foreign policy, I recall those individuals who understood the history of international conflicts and the policies that created greater global stability.  The names that most immediately come to mind are Henry Kissinger, both a secretary of state and a Harvard professor, Richard Nixon a too often maligned former president, who was highly educated and quite erudite as well as a brilliant global tactician.  James Baker, who served under three presidents through the most tumultuous period of the cold war.  FDR, who guided a nation out of The Great Depression and lead this nation to our eventual victory in WWII.  Most do not know that FDR, prior to his presidency, modernized our navy and was critical in setting our nation up for long term global success.  Ironically, I just realized that all these men were Ivy League educated and were truly patriotic, putting the needs of our nation above their personal interest. I will leave you with this thought regarding great patriots: great patriots are products of a  collectivist mindset in the way they view of the nation:  in the past forty years, Americans have moved away from the collectivist patriotic mindset that built this nation,  to an individualist mindset who’s hallmark is  self-interest and self-promotion  that is easily identified in our political culture.

Going back to the discussion of the history of the past one hundred and twenty-five years, we witnessed two world wars the engulphed the European continent and caused a rebalancing of global alliances and power.  While these World Wars have left a lasting mark on our collective memory, few people understand the socio-cultural and political drivers of these wars, or how the conflicts were largely due to totalitarian leaders emerging, who had very defined political, economic and cultural objectives. Totalitarianism refers to a political system where the government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state and the “leader” who demands total control.

In creating the social environment where totalitarianism can thrive, there need to be narratives that appeal to most of the nation, so power can be easily consolidated in the hands of the leader and his appointees. Germany, prior to WWII, was struggling economically after their defeat in WWI and The Great Depression, leaving most German citizens distraught about their finances and their future possibilities.  Hitler was able to step in bringing his own brand of German nationalism, that used xenophobia and antisemitism to unite the “mob” to support his ideology and leadership.  The term mob is used by Hanna Arendt in the best historical portrayal of the totalitarian movements in 20th century Europe “The History of Totalitarianism.”  The mob refers to the disenfranchised masses in 1930’s Germany, who were open to any leadership that could offer a change in their reality. 

The other major player in the 20th century European power struggle was the former Soviet Union, under the totalitarian/communist leadership of Joseph Stalin.  It was almost ironic that the USSR was part of the “allied powers” and in partnership with democratic republics, since they did not share the same political ideals.  However, political allies are often the mandate of larger interests, and the Soviets knew that their large Eurasian land mass was part of Hitler’s own “manifest destiny” a phrase which most commonly refers to the United States being entitled to the land between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Forcing the Germans to fight on two fronts was the best strategy to derail the Nazis. 

Most people are unaware that both the USSR and Germany had their own sociocultural rationales that were behind their expansionism in the region. Both Germany and the USSR were not participants in 19th century European imperialism, which saw the European nations expanding both their land and their resources by taking over countries in Africa and the Middle East, co-opting both their human and material resources to benefit their nations. This was largely because of their geographic positioning on the European continent, finding the USSR without a warm water port and Germany without the naval presence to play along.  Instead, these nations created ethnic models which enabled them to rationalize their expansion within Europe in what is called the “pan-German” and the “pan-Slavic” movements.  These models were rationalizations for both countries gobbling up land in accordance with the ethnicity of their residents.  The USSR managed to occupy all of Eastern Europe and the Germans attempted to do the same in Northern and Western Europe. 

In the aftermath of WWII, Germany was crushed and in need of rebuilding and the USSR who suffered the gravest losses of any nation with a body-count if twenty million, took possession of the entirety of Eastern Europe. As the west rebuilt Germany, the German leadership under Konrad Adenauer, needed to chose their best path to secure their future moving forward from their egregious past. Adenauer, a devout Christian understood that Germany must be a democratic republic, that aligns itself with the Western European nations.  The USSR, who held East Germany hostage, behind the Iron Curtain, was understood to be the greatest threat to peace on the continent.  Germany, who had a contentious relationship with France for the past few centuries had to convince French leader Charles De Gaulle that they could work together to secure Western Europe, later cementing their relationship in the Ellyse Treaty. In 1949 NATO was formed by the United States, Canada and the nations of Western European nations to create a military alliance that would protect Europe from Soviet block aggression.  Throughout the Cold War, the unified front presented by NATO, served as a deterrent to Soviet aggression, providing a balance of power, deterring a nuclear USSR from threatening or attacking any of the partners.

During this period the United States saw the spread of communism globally as being its greatest non-military threat.  This led us into the Korean War, Vietnam War and the closest we came to global nuclear war, The Bay of Pigs. Since NATO stabilized Europe, counterbalancing the Soviet threat, and the USSR had possession of the Slavic nation, their focus shifted to the spreading of communism as a ideology and economic model.  While China’s communist influence remained on the Asian continent, the Soviets saw it as a means to global expansion. During the Nixon administration, the US and USSR entered into multiple treaties regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons, known as the SALT treaties and maintained a yearly dialogue so reduce the possibility of knee-jerk conflicts that could escalate into nuclear conflicts. The primary US goal was to maintain a state of “détente” where neither side would provoke the other.  Nixon also opened diplomatic channels with China, and became the first president to travel to China to promote a mutually beneficial economic alliance that enabled China to use its natural and human resources to grow their economy.  In doing this, Nixon diminished the Soviet threat by removing Soviet influence over China. Nixons China policies is said to have destabilized the Soviet Union so much that it lead to its eventual disintegration twenty years later. Keep in mind that over these years, the NATO alliance provided the US with leverage on the European continent, holding the Soviets in check.

Moving forward beyond the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1992, there was a restructuring of the nations of Eastern Europe as most tried to regain national identities without the influence of their communist oppressors. History has shown us that nation building is a complex endeavor when religious and ethnic identities must be part of the equation.  As for Russia, there was political angst with the loss of territories and resources.  Russias leadership initially appeared to embrace their own form of democracy, the underlying corruption of the political figures and the “atavistic” yearning for the glory of their Soviet past led to the current totalitarian oligarchy that finds Vladimir Putin at its helm. Putin, a former KGB official, is a relative expert at the art of sublimating his citizens by limiting all aspects of their freedom and manipulating the economy, so that it only benefits the wealthy.  Russia has the fourth largest GDP of all nations, as well as some of the largest reserves of natural gas, oil and coal, making them a formidable player in the global economy.  However, income inequality, which is a product of deliberate oppression, is massive.    As of 2015, real income was lower for 99% of Russians than it was in 1991, under communist rule.  In most modern nations, income inequality can be correlated to real social and educational differences, whereas in Russia, it correlates to greed and oppression.

Ukraine was a part of the former Soviet Union, providing additional material resources, labor and many ports providing better access for naval activities and commerce. After 1992 the Ukraine embraced a democratic form of government, but as is seen throughout the former Soviet puppet states, a culture of corruption existed alongside the democratic model.  The corruption in these states stems from their communist pasts, whereby one could only better one’s economic reality through circumventing the states mandates.  Under President Zelinsky, many reforms have been made to cut down on the systemic corruption that has plagued the Ukraine. 

Russia’s interest in the Ukraine can be easily understood, given the history that I have shared.  Putin still embraces Stalin’s pan-Slavic political philosophy, that sees Mother Russia as rightful stakeholder of Slavic nations.  Ukraine has both human and natural resources that can expand the Russian economy and the wealth of the Russian oligarchs.
Russia has historically engaged in wars in the attempt to expand their naval influence by obtaining “warm water ports,” Ukraine expands these possibilities exponentially. Most of us have forgotten that Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 occupying and annexing Crimea, historically a part of Ukraine, claiming that ethnic Russians were being persecuted and slaughtered.  There were a small group of Russian separatists in the Ukraine that supported Putin’s land-grab, none of the Russian propaganda was true.

We need to take a hard look at the facts and the historical role of the United States in European policy and global stability and ask, what should be our role in this complex conflict.  In looking at the parties involved, the US State Department states the following about the war in Ukraine.

International Principles Challenged by Russia

Moscow’s actions in Ukraine threaten to set new precedents on European soil, undermining these basic international principles vital to peace and security:   

  • The borders and territorial integrity of a state cannot be changed by force.   
  •  Citizens in a democracy have an inherent right to determine their country’s future.   
  • All members of the international community are bound by common rules and must face consequences if they break their solemn commitments.   

These principles extend beyond Ukraine.   

These principles extend beyond Europe.   

These principles are the underpinnings of the international order that together the United States and our Allies and partners have built and sustained.  

In challenging these principles, Russia challenges the international system itself and unravels our transatlantic alliance, erodes our unity, and pressures democracies into failure.   

Diplomacy is the only responsible way to resolve this crisis.  

Now we need to look back at the events of the past week, that transpired in The Oval Office of the Whitehouse, and question whether the executive leadership of this nation is acting in concordance with the accepted “philosophy of the land?” Note, I am not embracing the Republican or Democratic position on what transpired, I am offering the overlooked history and facts, so that we can engage in a rational discourse and hold our politicians accountable to support traditional American ideals in global politics and policy.  If we wish to move to an economic discussion, the United States is 27% of the global GDP with all other NATO members combined representing roughly 13% of the global GDP.  The purpose of NATO is to create global stability through a unified military platform that prevents the type of global conflicts that killed millions in the 20th Century.  We have heard some of our politicians’ isolationist rants saying that we should pull out of NATO.  This makes me wonder if they understand the importance of global stability and the need for global partners for stability.  I find it terribly confusing that the United States, the cradle of global democracy, would ally themselves with Vladimir Putin, a totalitarian autocrat, instead of supporting Ukraine, a country committed holding to a democratic model of government. Unfortunately, the unsavory reality of politics is that there is no such thing as allies, only interests.  One must ask if President Trump, who has been known to have had business dealing with the Russians, can be viewed as an impartial party, making decisions that fall in line with American values or is there something more that we do not know?  While I don’t like making unfounded accusations, I do know enough about historical US policies to see that his actions do not pass historical scrutiny.  I have my own opinions on how we should move forward in regard to Ukraine and NATO, and I will likely share them in a future article.